Shear Behavior of Concrete

Beams Prestressed with

FRP Tendons
Sang Yeol Park, Ph.D.
Full-time Lecturer
Department of Ocean and
Civil Engineering
Cheju National University
Cheju, Korea
Antoine E. Naaman
Ph.D., P.E.
Professor
Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan
74
FRP reinforcements have excellent properties for use in concrete
structures including high corrosion resistance and high tensile
strength. However, they have some technical drawbacks, particularly
their lack of ductility and low transverse strength. This study deals
with an experimental investigation of the shear behavior of concrete
beams prestressed with CFRP tendons. In the experimental program,
the shear-tendon rupture failure mode was investigated in detail and
experimentally confirmed. Shear tests showed that premature failure
due to shear-tendon rupture is likely to occur in concrete beams
prestressed with FRP tendons, resulting in reduced load carrying
capacity. The premature fai lure is due to tendon rupture by dowel
shear at the shear-cracking plane and is attributed to the brittle
behavior and low transverse resistance of FRP tendons.
T
he applicability of Fiber Rein-
forced Polymer (FRP) rein-
forcements to concrete struc-
tures as a substitute for steel bars or
prestressing tendons is being actively
studied in numerous research laborato-
ries. This is primarily because FRP re-
inforcement, in comparison to conven-
tional steel reinforcement, offers some
excellent advantages, including non-
corrosive, non-magnetic, high strength,
and lightweight properties.
In particular, non-corrosion is the
most important property for civil en-
gineering infrastructures because the
deterioration due to corrosion causes
the most serious economic and techni-
cal problems in repairing existing
structures in many countries. Even in
prestressed concrete structures, which
have excellent durability, corrosion is
considered the main cause of long-
term deterioration.'
2
Therefore, FRP
reinforcements appear to be ideal sub-
stitutes for steel reinforcement in con-
crete structures.
On the other hand, FRP reinforce-
ments also have some disadvantages
such as non-plastic behavior, very low
shear or transverse strength, suscepti-
bility to stress-rupture, and high cost.
From a structural engineering view-
point, the most serious of these disad-
vantages are the lack of plastic behav-
ior and the very low shear strength in
the transverse direction. Such charac-
teristics may lead to premature tendon
rupture, particularly when combined
PCI JOURNAL
effects are present, such as at shear-
cracking planes where dowel action
exists in prestressed concrete beams.
The dowel action reduces residual ten-
sile and shear resistance in the tendon.
Thus, it is expected that shear-tendon
rupture failure initiated by dowel ac-
tion results in less shear resistance and
shear ductility in concrete members
prestressed with FRP tendons.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The majority of research on con-
crete structures using FRP reinforce-
ments has been on members that are
not critical in shear. Because there
have been very few shear tests, the
shear behavior of prestressed con-
crete members using FRP reinforce-
ment is not well understood. Unlike
flexural behavior, shear behavior is
quite complex by itself, even in ordi-
nary reinforced or prestressed con-
crete members.
Furthermore, the experimentally de-
rived prediction equation for the shear
capacity of prestressed concrete mem-
bers using steel tendons has not yet
been proven to be applicable when
FRP tendons are used. This is because
the mechanical characteristics of FRP
reinforcement, such as no yielding be-
havior, low shear or transverse
strength, and low elastic modulus, are
significantly different from those of
steel tendons.
The few researchers
3

6
who have
studied the shear behavior of concrete
beams prestressed with FRP tendons
focused mainly on their shear strength,
not on the shear failure mode.
Nishikawa et aJ. were the first to re-
port that prestressed concrete beams
using CFRP tendons with low residual
elongation ability lose their shear re-
sisting capacity by tendon failure at
the shear crack. Jeong and Naaman
7
speculated on the possible causes of
the FRP shear-tendon rupture that oc-
curred in some of their flexural tests.
In addition, the JSCE Research Sub-
committee on FRP
8
comments on the
possibility of lowered ultimate load
due to local stress in tensile reinforce-
ment at the crack location by dowel
action, and ACI Committee 440
9
sug-
gests that special attention should be
devoted to the reduced dowel contri-
bution of FRP reinforcements in the
January-February 1999
Fig. 1. Dowel action in concrete beam.
presence of shear cracks. However, to
the authors ' knowledge, there has
been no study on this type of shear
failure in concrete beams prestressed
with FRP tendons.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Longitudinal reinforcement, which
is designed primarily to resist flexural
tension, is often required to carry a
shear force by dowel action across a
diagonal tension crack. If the crack
opens (rotates) slightly, a shear dis-
placement will result from the rotation
of a beam about the crack tip and the
(a)
Tendon
(c)
p
shear slip due to the shear force along
the crack face. To resist differential
shear displacement between the crack
faces , the bars or tendons develop
dowel shear forces. This counteraction
of the bars or tendons to displacement
is called "dowel action" (see Fig. 1).
In a diagonally cracked prestressed
concrete beam, dowel action leads to a
dowel bending moment and a shear
force in the tendon itself, in addition
to the tensile force due to the effective
prestressing force and the applied
load. As the bending moment and the
shear force due to dowel action in-
crease with loading, bending and shear
Tendon
Horizontal cracking and
spalling of concrete cover
(b)
Yiel
orr
Tendon
(d)
Fig. 2. Failure modes observed in test beams: (a) shear-tendon rupture failure;
(b) shear-tension failure; (c) shear-compression failure; (d) flexural-tension failure.
75
Table 1. Experimental variables of test beams for first series.
Effective
Effective prestressing Concrete
Beam Longitudinal depth,d, force, F, strength,//
ideJ]tification tendons in. (mm) kips (kN) psi (MPa) Reinforcing index, w
Cl CFRP 3 cp
5
116 in. 8.60 (218) 22.35 (99.4) 6450 (44.4) 0.22
(51.5 percent)
C2 CFRP 3 cp
5
116 in. 8.60 (218) 22.35 (99.4) 6750 (46.5) 0.21
(51.5 percent)
Sl Steel 3 <1>
3
/s in. 9.00 (229) 19.48 (86.6) 6150 (42.4) 0.23
(28.3 percent)
S2 Steel 3 cp
3
/s in. 9.00 (229) 19.48 (86.6) 6030 (41.6) 0.23
(28.3 percent)
CS1* CFRP 3 cp
5
11 6 in. 8.60 (218) 22.35 (99.4) 6650 (45.9) 0.21
(51.5 percent)
C3 CFRP 2 cp
5
11 6 in. 8.45 (215) 17.82 (79.3) 6450 (44.5) 0.30
(61.6 percent)
Steel I cp 'h in. 13.71 (61.0)
(33.2 percent)
C4 CFRP 2 cp
5
11 6 in. 8.45 (215) 17.82 (79.3) 6200 (42.7) 0.31
(61.6 percent)
Steel! cp
1
h in. 13.71 (61.0)
(33.2 percent)
S3 Steel 2 <I>
3
ls in. 8.80 (224) 17.12 (76.1) 6600 (45.5) 0.27
(37 .3 percent)
Steel I cp
1
h in. 13.55 (60.3)
(32.8 percent)
S4 Steel 2 cp
3
ls in. 8.80 (224) 17.12 (76.1) 5950 (41.0) 0.30
(37 .3 percent)
" Steel I cp
1
h in. 13.55 (60.3)
(32.8 percent)
Note: w = (Ap, l bd, )(/p/J, ) for FRP tendons; w = (Ap,l bd, )(jpj J, ) for steel tendons, where AP, = area of prestressing tendons,JP" = ultimate strength of FRP tendons,
J PY = yield strength of steel tendons.
* Two percent steel fibers by volume.
<1> = strand diameter
stresses initiate simultaneously in the
FRP tendon and become larger. Under
these combined tensile and shear
stresses, the tendon may fail prema-
turely, that is, before reaching its uni -
directional tensile strength.
According to current research,
6
'
0
"
the available tensile strength of FRP
reinforcements decreases as their
shear stress increases. Thus, dowel ac-
tion reduces the allowable tensile
stress in the tendon beyond that al-
ready caused by the effective pre-
stressing force and applied load. Also,
it may change the failure mode of a
beam from flexural-tension failure to
shear-tendon rupture failure, resulting
in less load carrying capacity.
Therefore, it is expected that the
premature shear-tendon rupture failure
initiated by dowel action will result in
lesser shear resistance and lesser duc-
tility in concrete members prestressed
with FRP tendons. Fig. 2 shows
schematically the shear-tendon rupture
76
failure mode in concrete beams pre-
stressed with FRP tendons and other
failure modes observed in test beams
with FRP and steel tendons.
EXPERIMENTAL
PROGRAM
The experimental program included
two series of test s (two set s of
beams) . The first series compri sed
nine prestressed concrete beams fabri-
cated without stirrups . Five beams
were prestressed using CFRP tendons
and, for comparison, four beams were
prestressed using conventional steel
tendons.
One beam with FRP tendons was
made of fiber reinforced concrete con-
taining discontinuous steel fibers. The
main objective of thi s first series of
tests was to experimentally confirm
the shear-tendon rupture failure mode
in prestressed concrete beams with
FRP tendons and to compare it with
other failure modes in prestressed con-
crete beams with steel tendons.
The second series of the experimen-
tal program comprised seven FRP pre-
stressed concrete beams and one non-
prestressed beam shear rei nforced
with steel stirrups (seven beams) or
steel fibers (one beam). The test pa-
rameters were the pretensioning ratio,
the shear span-to-depth ratio, shear re-
inforcement ratio, the use of steel
fibers , the compressive strength of
concrete, and the type of reinforce-
ment. The main goal of the second se-
ries was to evaluate the parameters af-
fecting the shear strength and ductility
of concrete beams prestressed with
FRP tendons.
Materials
Seven-wire CFRP strands manufac-
tured by Tokyo Rope Company'
2
were
used for the test beams. The
5
/ 16 in.
(7 .5 mm) diameter tendon had-an ef-
fective section area of 0.047 sq in.
PC! JOURNAL
Tabl e 2. Experimental vari ables of test beams for second seri es.
I''
Beam Longitudinal
identification tendons
---
C5 CFRP I <!>
1
h in.

CFRP 2 <1>
5
/i 6 in.
'"
S5 Steel 3 <1>
3
/s in.
-
CS3* CFRP 1 <!>
1
h in.
CFRP 2 <1>
5
/i 6 in.
--
C6 CFRP I <j> 'h in.
CFRP 2 <1>
5
/i 6 in.
--
-
C7 CFRP I <!> 'h in.
CFRP 2 <1>
5
/i 6 in.
r-- -
C8 CFRP I <j> 'h in.
CFRP 2 <1>
5
/i 6 in.
f---
C9 CFRP I <!>
1
h in.
CFRP 2 <!>
5
1i 6 in.
CIO CFRP I <!>
1
h in.
CFRP 2 <j>
5
/i 6 in.
Note: <1> = strand di ameter
*Two percent steel fibers by volume.
(30.4 mm
2
) with a specified strength,
/pu of 307 ksi (2120 MPa) and the
1
/z
in. (12. 5 mm) diameter tendon had an
effective section area of 0.118 sq in.
(76.0 mm
2
) with a specified strength,
/pu of 315 ksi (2170 MPa). According
to the manufacturer, the stress-strain
relati onship of the tendons is linear
elas ti c up to failure with a tensile
modulus of 19,900 and 2 1,000 ksi
(137 and 145 GPa) with an elongation
of 1. 6 and 1.5 percent at rupture, re-
spectively.
The steel tendons used had a diame-
ter of
3
/s and
1
/z in. (9. 5 and 12.5 mm)
and were of Grade 270 ksi ( 1860
MPa) with a te nsil e modulu s of
29,000 ksi (200 GPa). No. 2 round re-
inforcing bars for the stirrups were
Grade 40 ksi (275 MPa) . Type III ce-
ment, natural sand, and crushed lime-
stone aggregates (pea gravel in the
second seri es) with a maximum size
of
3
/s in. (9.5 mm) were used for the
concrete. The fibers used for the con-
January-February 1999
Effective
Sti rrups, Effective prest ressing
spacing, s depth, d, force, F,
in. (mm) in. (mm) kips (kN)
1-leg #2 8.67 (220) 15.35 (68.3)
8 (203) ( 41.3 percent)
12.01 (53.4)
'
(41.5 percent)
- H:
l -leg #2 9.00 (229) 27.40 (1 21.9)
8 (203) (39.8 percent)
No stirrups 8.67 (220) 15.40 (68.5)
( 41.8 percent)
12. 18 (54.2)
( 42. 1 percent)
!-leg #2 8.67 (220) 0 (0 percent)
8 (203) 0 (0 percent)
2-leg #2 8.67 (220) 15.35 (68.3)
4 (102) ( 41.3 percent)
12.01 (53.4)
( 41.5 percent)
1-leg #2 8.67 (220) 15.43 (68.6)
8 (203) (41.5 percent)
12.09 (53. 8)
( 41. 8 percent)
1-leg #2 8. 67 (220) 15.46 (68.8)
8 (203) (41.6 percent)
12.12 (53.9)
(41.9 percent)
1-l eg #2 8.67 (220) 15.72 (69.9)
8 (203) ( 42.3 percent)
12.35 (54.9)
( 42.7 percent)
crete were hooked steel fibers 1.18 in.
(30 mm) in length and 0.02 in. (0.5
mm) in diameter.
Test Variables
Experimental variables for the test
beams in the first and second series
are summarized in Tables 1 and 2, re-
spectively. All beams in the first series
were fabri cat ed without stirrups.
Beams Cl , C2, and CS 1 were pre-
stressed with CFRP tendons, while
Beams Sl , S2, S3, and S4 were pre-
stressed with steel tendons. Combined
CFRP and steel tendons were used for
Beams C3 and C4.
In the second seri es, steel stirrups
were used for all beams except Beam
CS3. Minimum shear reinforcement
was provided for all beams in the sec-
ond series except Beam C7, for which
the required shear reinforcement was
provided, according to the ACI Code.'
3
For Beams CS 1 and CS3, hooked steel
I
Concrete
strength,fc' Reinforcing
psi (MPa) index, w
5050 (34.8) 0.32
5650 (39.0) 0.25
5900 (40.7) 0.28
5100 (35.2) 0.32
-
5200 (35.9) 0. 3 1
5400 (37.2) 0. 30
I
5250 (36.2) 0.30
--
7050 (48. 6) 0.23
fibers were used in the amount of 2
percent by volume of concrete.
The effecti ve prestress ratio of FRP
tendons was about 50 percent (or 60
percent) for the first series of beams
and about 40 percent of the specific
strength of the tendons for the second
seri es except for the nonprestressed
Beam C6. The pretensioning forces
were released 4 days after casting the
concrete, when the compressive con-
crete strength had reached about 70
percent of its 28-day strength . The
prestress losses were calculated by the
time-step method.
14
The selected shear
span-to-depth ratio was 2.5 for all
beams, except for 1.5 and 3.5 fo r
Beams C8 and C9, respectively.
Test Setup and Data Acquisit ion
The loading arrangement and cross-
secti onal dimensions (same for all
beams) are shown in Fi g. 3. The
beams were simpl y supported and sub-
77
p
0 0 0
0000000000000
0000000000000000000
,
8"
9.5"
203)
241)
-'--
1 0.75"
273) (
5"
w
""
Prestr ng eSSl
tendon
( 127)
43" 1092)
1"(279)
b 2a
65"(1651)
L
Note: Dimensions in
parenthesis are in mm
Beam C8: L= 65"(1651) , 2a = 26"(660), b = 19.5"(495)
Beam C9 : L= 83"(1346), 2a = 61"(1549), b = 11"(279)
Fig. 3. Loading arrangement and typical cross section.
jected to one concentrated load at
midspan. The selected shear span-to-
depth ratio was 2.5, except for 1.5 and
3.5 for Beams C8 and C9, respec-
tively. Fig. 4 shows an overall view of
the test setup and instrumentation.
A non-contacting motion measuring
instrument (Optotrak) was used to
measure crack displacements and
crack widths as well as load and de-
flection. This instrument is a three-
dimensional digitizing and motion
analysis system. It operates by track-
ing the 3-D coordinates (x,y,z) of ac-
tive infrared emitting diodes attached
to a test specimen. For each beam, 32
markers were glued on the surface of
the beam. At the level of the longitudi-
nal reinforcement, markers were
placed at 2 in. (50 mm) intervals.
The test beam was loaded using dis-
placement control at a loading rate of
0.001 in. (0.025 mm) per second. For
the first series of tests, each beam was
loaded for one or two cycles up to
about 60 or 80 percent of expected
maximum flexural load, prior to pro-
ceeding with the final loading path.
For the second series of tests, each
beam was loaded monotonically up to
failure without prior loading. Continu-
ous readings of applied load and coor-
dinates of infrared markers were
recorded every second.
Fig. 4. Overall view of test setup and instrumentation.
The following data were obtained
by the Optotrak system: (1) load from
the load cell of the Instron loading ma-
chine; (2) deflection at midspan; and
78
(3) crack width and differential shear
(transverse) displacement at the crack-
ing plane from the markers at the level
of the longitudinal tendons. Although
32 markers were attached to the test
beam, only the data obtained from the
markers that were closest to and on ei-
ther side of the critical shear-cracking
plane were utilized.
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
OF TEST RESULTS
Relevant test results of the first se-
ries of beams are summarized in
Table 3.
Comparison of Test Results
for Series I
Beams Cl and C2 vs. Sl and S2
- To evaluate the effect of FRP vs.
steel tendons, the test results of Beams
Cl and C2 are compared with those of
Beams Sl and S2. Beams Cl and C2
were prestressed with FRP tendons ,
while Beams S 1 and S2 were pre-
stressed with steel tendons.
A marked difference between the
test beams was their mode of failure.
Beams Cl and C2 failed by shear-
tendon rupture, while Beams S 1 and
S2 failed by shear-compression. As
PCI JOURNAL
Table 3. Summary of shear test results for first series.
Beam Failure Pu bll
I
(jSll Wsu P scr
P,
11
(ACI) I PJ P,
11
Pfu (ACI)
identification mode kips (kN) in. (mm) in. (mm) in.(mm) kips (kN) kips (kN) (ACI) kips (kN)
Cl STR 41.7 (185) 0.24 (6. 1) 0.030 (0.76) 0.016 (0.41) 32.6 ( 145) 25.7 ( 114) l.62 44.4 ( 197)
C2 STR 43.7 (194) 0.29 (7.4) 0.027 (0.69) 0.024 (0.61) 28.5 ( li S) 25.9 ( li S) 1. 69 44.7 (199)
Sl sc 49.4 (219) 0.35 (8.9) 0.092 (2.34) 0.032 (0.8 1) 27.3 (121) 24.7 ( 110) 2.00 48.4 (2 1 5)
--r--
S2 sc 47.5 (21 1) 0.38 (9.7) 0.096 (2.44) 0.046 (1. 17) 27.7 (123) 24.6 ( 109) 1.93 48.2(2 14)
CSI Ff - ~ 4 9 6 (22 1) ~ I (5.3) 0. 009 (0.23) 0.0 I 0 (0.25) 34.0 (IS I) 25.8 ( li S) 44.6 ( 198)
1-
STR +- 49.8 (Z22l 0.23 (5.8) C3 0.034 (0.86) 0.026 (0.66) 35.5 ( I 57) 31.1 ( 138) 1.60 55.7 (248)
I
-
1-
C4 STR 51 .0 (227) 0.24 (6.1 ) 0.037 (0.94) 0.023 (0.58) 38.6 (172) 30.9 ( 137) 1. 65
I
55.2 (246)
+-
S3 ST 57.0 (254) 0.27 (6.9) N/A N/A 38.0 (169) 32.1 ( 143) 1.78 57.3 (255)
+-
S4 ST 54.1 (241) 0.28(7.1) N/A N/A
I
40.0 ( 178) 31.6 ( 141) 1.71 56.1 (250)
ole: STR: Shear-tendon rupture failure; Ff: Fl exural-tension failure: SC: Shear-compression failure: ST: Shear-tension failure.
P
11
= ultimate load
6
11
= ultimate defl ecti on
Dsu = ultimate shear dj spl acement
Wsu =ultimate shear crack width
P,a =shear cracking load
P,., (ACI) =design shear strength using ACI Code
P
1
, (ACI) = design fl exural strength using ACI Code
Fi g. 5. Shear-tendon rupture failure and crack pattern of
Beam C1 .
Fi g. 6. Shear-compression failure and crack pattern of
Beam 51.
shown in Figs. 5 and 6, Beam CJ was
split into two segments by the tendon
rupture at the critical shear-crack
plane, while Beam S I remained to-
gether. Also, Beam C1 had smooth
failure faces , while Beam S1 had the
concrete crushed in the compression
zone and spalled off in the tension
zone. The angle of the critical shear
cracking was about 50 to 55 degrees in
Beams C I and C2, and about 45 de-
grees in Beams S I and S2.
Different types of failure led to dif-
ferent shear resisting capacities. On
average, Beams C 1 and C2, which
failed by shear-tendon rupture, had
about 12 percent less shear carrying
capacity than Beams S I and S2, which
failed by shear-compression in the
concrete. Also, the average ultimate
deflection of Beams C 1 and C2 at
January-February 1999
midspan was about 30 percent less
than that of Beams S 1 and S2.
For the beams that failed by shear,
the measured ultimate loads were con-
siderably higher than the design shear
strength computed using the ACI
Code. Beams C 1 and C2 had about 65
percent higher ultimate shear
strengths, while Beams S I and S2 had
about 95 percent higher ultimate shear
strengths.
It can be seen from Figs. 7, 8, and 9
that the general shapes of the load-
deflection response of Beams Cl and
S I , their load-shear displacement, and
their load-shear crack width are very
similar. However, the values of loads,
deflections, shear displacements and
shear crack widths at ultimate were
significantly different. The response
curves of Beams C2 and S2 are not
shown in the figures because they
were very similar to those of Beams
Cl and Sl , and to maintain the clarity
of the figures.
A notable difference between the
two types of reinforcement (FRP vs.
steel) is in the maximum vertical shear
displacement at the critical shear-
cracking plane. As can be seen in
Table 3 and Figs. 8 and 1 0, the aver-
age differential shear displacement of
Beams C I and C2 at ultimate load was
about 30 percent of that of Beams S 1
and S2.
Also, the average crack width of
Beams Cl and C2 at failure load was
about 50 percent of that of Beams S 1
and S2. Moreover, as shown in Fig.
10, the relationship between the shear
displacement and crack width was al-
most linear for all beams. It is also ob-
79
Shear crack width (mm)
0 2
Deflection (mm)
4 6 8 10 12
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1. 2
60
250
250
50
Beam CSl .. Beam Sl
50
Beam CS1
. Beam 81
.......
200
....._40
"'
Beam C1(solid)
0.
g30
'""'
"'
j 20
10
50
....._ 40
"' 0.
g 30
'""'
"'
j 20
10
Beam q ...
200
.
50
0


0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Deflection (in)
Shear crack width (in)
Fig. 7. Load-deflection curves for Beams C1 , 51, and CS1. Fig. 9. Load-shear crack width curves for Beams C1, 51 , and CSl.
Shear displacement (mm)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

50
....._ 40
"' 0.
d 3o
'""'
"'
j 20
Bea m CS1
Beam Sl
.........
Beam C! _ ... -
---
Shear displacement (in)
0. 12
g
0. 1
200
c 0.08
Q)
E
Q)
0.06
c.
"' ;; 0.04
....
"'
50
0.02
Cll
0
Shear crack width (mm)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
3
Beam 81
2.56
s
2
c
Q)
E
1.5
"'
c.
1
"' ;;
:..
0.5
..c:
Cll
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Shear crack width (in)
Fig. 8. Load-shear displacement curves for Beams C1 , 51 ,
and CS1 .
Fig. 10. Shear displacement-crack width curves for Beams C1,
51 , and CSl.
served that Beam CS 1 had a small er
slope (i.e., stiffer response) than that
of Beams C 1 and S 1.
Beams Cl and C2 vs. CSl - In
order to assess the effects of adding
fibers to the concrete matrix, the test
results of Beams Cl and C2 are com-
pared to the results of Beam CS 1,
which was made of fiber reinforced
concrete.
As mentioned earlier, Beams C1
and C2 failed by shear-tendon rupture,
whi le Beam CSl failed by flexural
tension (Figs. 5 and 11). The addition
of fibers changed the fai lure mode and
led to smaller crack widths and a
larger number of cracks. The reduc-
tion in crack width led to a reduction
in differential shear displacement,
which changed the failure mode from
80
shear-tendon rupture to flexural-
tension failure. Also, the load carrying
capacity of Beam CS1 was 15 percent
larger than the average load carrying
capacity of Beams C1 and C2, and its
deflection at ultimate was 20 percent
smaller.
Moreover, due to the effects of the
fi bers, Beam CS 1 was considerably
stiffer than Beams C1 and C2 (see Fig.
7) and its ultimate differential shear
displacement and crack width were al-
most one-third and one-half the aver-
age val ues of Beams C1 and C2, re-
spectively (see Figs. 8, 9, and 10).
Unlike beams with FRP tendons that
failed by flexural mode, Beam CS 1
did not experience the very loud bang
and had no large longitudinal cracks.
This fact is attributed to the effects of
fi bers, including higher bond strength,
hi gher confi ning forces , and hi gher
fracture toughness resulting in a
higher capacity of energy absorption
at FRP tendon rupture.
Beams C3 and C4 vs. S3 and S4
- Beams C3 and C4 were prestressed
with two FRP tendons and one steel
tendon, while Beams S3 and S4 were
prestressed with three steel tendons.
They had about the same prestressing
index.
The fai lure modes of these beams
were significantly different. Beams C3
and C4 fai led by shear-tendon rupture
(see Fig. 12), while Beams S3 and S4
failed by shear-tension (see Fig. 13).
The latter is characterized by splitting
(debondi ng) along the tension rein-
forcement at the end of a diagonal ten-
PCI JOURNAL
Fig. 11.
Flexural-tension
failure and crack
pattern of
Beam CS1.
Fig. 12.
Shear-tendon
rupture failure and
crack pattern of
Beam C4.
Fig. 13.
Shear-tension failure
and crack pattern of
Beam 54.
sion crack. The shear-tension failure
in Beams S3 and S4 also had a differ-
ent failure pattern from the shear-
compression failure in Beams S 1 and
S2, which could be explained by their
higher prestressing force (or prestress-
ing index).
As can be seen in Fig. 14, the load-
deflection curves of Beams C4 and S4
are very similar up to the ultimate
loads. Moreover, there is no distinct
difference in the crack pattern except
that the diagonal tension cracks of
Beams S3 and S4 occurred at the final
January-February 1999
stage of loading with relatively low
angles of about 30 to 35 degrees and
led to failure.
On the other hand, the critical shear
cracks in Beams C3 and C4, which de-
veloped from the early stages of load-
ing with angles of 50 and 40 degrees,
respectively, caused the failure. The
average ultimate deflection of Beams
C3 and C4 was slightly smaller than
that of Beams S3 and S4. On average,
Beams C3 and C4 had about 10 per-
cent less shear resistance than that of
Beams S3 and S4.
Test Results of Test Series II
Table 4 presents the summary of
relevant test results for the second set
of beams, and Figs. 15, 16, 17, and 18
show their load-deflection, load-shear
displacement, load-shear crack width,
and shear displacement-crack width
curves, respectively.
Comparison of Test Results
for Series II
Beams CS and SS - Beam CS was
prestressed with FRP tendons, while
Beam S5 was prestressed with steel
tendons. The effective prestressing
ratio in the FRP tendons was about 40
percent. Both beams failed by shear-
tension failure; however, Beam CS
had about 13 percent less shear resist-
ing capacity than Beam SS (see Table
4). It appeared here that a reduction in
the effective prestressing ratio
changed the shear failure mode in
Beam CS from shear-tendon rupture to
shear-tension. The measured ultimate
load of Beams CS and SS was, respec-
tively, 23 and 40 percent higher than
the design shear strength calculated
from the ACI Code.
The shear-tension failure that oc-
curred in Beams C5 and SS was sud-
den and explosive. The concrete cover
of the test beams suddenly cracked
and spalled off along the longitudinal
tendons. Their crack patterns were
very similar except that the angle of
the critical shear crack of Beam CS
(about 45 degrees) was slightly steeper
than that of Beam SS (about 40
degrees).
The general shape of the load-
deflection curves (see Fig. 15) and
load-shear displacement curves (see
Fig. 16) of Beams CS and SS are simi-
lar. At the failure load, Beams CS and
SS had about the same ultimate deflec-
tion and shear displacement. The dif-
ference in their ultimate shear strength
can be attributed to the difference in
the elastic moduli of the tendons. Steel
tendons would have higher tensile
forces than FRP tendons at the same
deflection. Beam SS showed about the
same response as Beam CS until shear
cracking load, and higher stiffness
after shear cracking. The ultimate
shear crack width of Beam CS at the
failure shear plane was about two
times that of Beam SS. The relation-
81
Fig. 14.
Comparison of load-
deflection curves for
Beams C4 and 54.
50
2
0 0.1
ship between the shear displacement
and crack width was almost li near for
the two beams (see Fig. 18).
Beams CS, C7, and CS3 - Beams
C5, C7, and CS3 were identically pre-
stressed with three FRP tendons. For
Beams C5 and C7, respectively, mini-
mum and required shear reinforce-
ments according to the ACI Code
were provided with steel stirrups. For
Beam CS3, 2 percent by volume of
hooked steel fibers was added to the
concrete matrix as a substitute for
steel stirrups.
There was a marked difference be-
tween the modes of failure of these
beams. Beams C7 and CS3 failed by
shear-tendon rupture, while Beam C5
failed by shear-tension as mentioned
earlier. Increasing the amount of stir-
rups or adding steel fibers, increased
Deflection (mm)
4 6 8 10
. .. Beam S4
Beam C4 (solid)
0.2 0.3 0.4
Deflection (in)
12
250
200
1soz-
c
'"0
100 g
....:1
50
0
0.5
the ultimate load but changed the fail -
ure mode from shear-tension failure to
shear-tendon rupture failure. The FRP
tendons in Beams C7 and CS3
snapped at a flexural-shear-cracking
plane. All three tendons in Beam CS3
ruptured simultaneously, while two
tendons in the lower row of Beam C7
ruptured at failure.
The angle of the failure flexural
shear plane was about 65 degrees in
Beam C7 and about 60 degrees in
Beam CS3. The fail ure plane of Beam
C7 initiated at the bottom location of
the first steel stirrup nearest to the
loading point. The addition of steel
fibers in Beam CS3 led to smaller
crack widths and a larger number of
cracks. The flexural crack width in
Beam CS3 was too small to be mea-
sured even at the ultimate load.
Table 4. Summary of shear test results for second series.
Beam Failure P. 6. 6,. w,.
identification mode kips (kN) in. (mm) in. (mm) in. (mm)
cs ST 41.9 (186) 0.35 (8.9) 0.108 (2.74) 0.066 ( 1.68)
ss ST 48.3 (215) 0.32 (8.1) 0.097 (2.46) 0.036 (0.91 )
CS3 STR 50.6 (225) 0.27 (6.9) 0.036 (0.91 ) 0.043 ( 1.09)
C6 ST 15.8 (70) 0.55 (14.0) - -
C7 STR 47.1 (210) 0.43 (10.9) 0.024 (0.61) 0.023 (0.58)
C8 cs 57.7 (257) 0. 12 (3.0) - -
C9 ST 29.9 (133) 0.54 (13.7) - -
Cl O ST 44.4 (197) 0.48( 12. 2) 0.079 (2.00) 0.041 (1.04)
Note: STR: Shear-tendon rupture failure; ST: Shear-tension frulure; CS: CompressiOn-strut fru.lure.
Pu =ultimate load
/J, ; ultimate deflection
flsu =ultimate shear displacement
w su =ultimate shear crack width
P, ; shear cracking load
P'" (ACD; design shear strength using ACI Code
Pfi< (ACI) ; design fl exural strength using ACI Code
82
Pscr
kips (kN)
28 (125)
30 (133)
32 (142)
10 (44)
26 (116)
52 (231)
20 (89)
28 (125)
As can be seen in Table 4, the ulti-
mate shear resisting capacity of Beam
C7 was 12 percent larger than that of
Beam C5. The load-deflection re-
sponse of Beam C7 was very similar
to that of Beam C5 except that Beam
C7 has slightly higher stiffness after
shear cracking and larger deflection
(about 25 percent) at the ultimate load
(see Fig. 15) . At the flexural-shear
plane, the ultimate shear displacement
of Beam C7 was about one-quarter
and the corresponding crack width
was about one-third that of Beam C5.
Beam CS3, which failed by shear-
tendon rupture, had about 20 percent
larger shear resisting capacity than
Beam C5, which failed by shear ten-
sion. Due to the effects of steel fibers,
Beam CS3 was considerably stiffer
than Beam C5 from the beginning to
the failure load, with a steady continu-
ous change in curvature in the load-
deflection curve after shear cracking
(see Fig. 15). The ultimate deflection
of Beam CS3 was about 75 percent of
that of Beam C5 (see Table 4). The ul-
timate shear displacement and corre-
sponding shear crack width at the
shear-cracking plane were one-third
and two-thirds of that of Beam C5,
respectively.
The reason why the tendon-rupture
of Beams C7 and CS3 occurred at a
shear displacement smaller than that
of Beam C5 is thought to be due to the
strengthened concrete cover due to
hook action of the steel stirrups and
steel fibers. The strengthened concrete
P,. (ACn P.fP,. Pfu (ACI)
kips (kN) (ACI) ki ps (kN)
34.0 (151) 1.23 48.9 (218)
34.6 (154) 1.40 47.7 (212)
33.8 (150) 1.50 50.5 (225)
25.0 (111) 1.02 49.0 (218)
46.7 (208) 1.01 49.2 (219)
38.6 (172) 1.49 86. 2 (383)
23.2 (103) 1.29 34.6 (154)
34.8 (155) 1.28 52.1 (232)
PCI JOURNAL
Deflect ion (mm)
0 6 8 10 12 14 16
70
STR: Shear-tendon rupture
60 C8 (CS)
ST: Shear -tension failur e
CS: Compression-strut failure
50
CS3 (STR)
55
(S'I)
'Cii' 40
;g
al 30
j
20
C6 (S'I)
10
300
60
250
50
200
40
z
1 5 0 ~
-;;-
0.
g 30
~
""
j
100
.,
j 20
50
10
0 0.5
Shea r cr ack widt h (mm)
1 1. 5
CS3 (STR)
2.5
250
200
150z-
c
STR: Shear-tendon r upture ""
ST: Shear -tension failure 100 j
50
0
0
0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o
0 0. 1 0. 2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0. 1
Defl ection (in) Shear crack wi dth (in)
Fig. 15. Load-deflecti on curves of second set of beams. Fig. 17. Load-shear crack width curves of second set of beams.
60
50
40
-;;-
Q.
g
30
""

j
20
10
0
0 0.5
CS3 (STR)
Shear displacement (mm)
1.5 2 2.5 3
S5 (S'I)
STR: Shear-t endon rupt ure
ST: Shear-tension failure
3. 5
250
200
150z-
c
"'
" 100j
50
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0. 1 0. 12 0. 14
Shear displace ment (in)
Shear crack width (mm)
0 0. 5 1 1.5 2.5
0. 14 3. 5
0.12
C5 (S'I)
3
5
g 0. 1 2.5 ..
~
~
c
0.08 2 "
E
E
1J
1J
.,
STR: Shea r-tendon rupture
"
]- 0.06
ST: Shear -tension failur e
1. 5 g.
:0
:0
:;
0.04
1
;;
"
" ..c::
eli
en
0.02
0.5
0
0
0 0.02 0. 04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Shear crack width (in)
Fig. 16. Load-shear displacement curves of second set of
beams.
Fi g. 18. Shear di spl acement-crack width curves of second set
of beams.
cover prevents the opening of a hori-
zontal crack along the longitudinal re-
inforcement , res ulting in increased
dowel force on CFRP tendons.
As a result of the premature shear-
tendon rupture, the ultimate shear re-
sisting capacity of Beam C7, which re-
quired stirrups according to the ACI
Code, was considerabl y reduced and
was about 7 percent less than that of
Beam CS3, which contained 2 percent
hooked steel fibers without stirrups
(see Table 4). In both cases, the beams
fai led by shear-tendon rupture at the
fl exural-shear-cracking plane. At the
ul timate load, Beam CS3 had about a
35 percent smaller ultimate deflection.
As shown in Figs. 16 and 17, Beams
C7 and CS3 show a very steep re-
sponse in their load-shear displacement
January-February 1999
and load- shear crack width curves.
Like other beams, Beams C7 and CS3
al so showed an almost Linear relation-
ship between the shear di splacement
and crack width (see Fig. 18).
Beams CS and C6 - To evaluate
the effects of prestressing on the shear
performance, Beam C6 was fabri cated
with FRP tendons with no prestress,
i.e., similar to reinforced concrete.
Beam C6 fail ed by shear-tension,
which was the same failure mode as
Beam C5. However, the ultimate shear
strength of Beam C6 was about 40
percent of that of Beam C5 (see Table
4 ). This suggests that increasing the
prestressing force is a possible way to
increase the shear resisting capacity of
concrete beams prestressed with FRP
and steel tendons. The angle of the
failure shear pl ane of Beam C6 was
about 35 degrees, while that of Beam
C5 was 45 degrees. As shown in Fig.
15, Beam C6 has much lower stiffness
and about 60 percent larger ultimate
defl ection than Beam C5.
Beams CS, C8, and C9 - To eval-
uate the effects of shear span-to-depth
rati o, Beams C8 and C9 were tested
with a shear span-to-depth ratio of 1.5
and 3.5, respectively, and compared to
Beam C5, whi ch was tested at a shear
span-to-depth rati o of 2. 5.
Beam C8 failed by crushing of the
compression strut and Beam C9 failed
by shear-tension, which was the same
failure mode as Beam CS . For Beam
C8 with a shear span-to-depth ratio of
1.5, the applied load seemed to be car-
ried mainl y by the compression strut
83
connecting the loading point to the
support, at an angle of 35 degrees. For
Beam C9 with a shear span-to-depth
ratio of 3.5, the failure crack angle
was about 25 degrees, which is much
smaller than that of Beam C5 (about
45 degrees).
The ultimate shear resisting capaci-
ties of Beams C8 and C9 were about
40 percent higher and about 30 per-
cent lower than that of Beam C5, re-
spectively. At the ultimate load, the
deflections of Beams C8 and C9 were
about 65 percent smaller and about 55
percent larger than that of Beam C5,
respectively. Thus, it is concluded that
the beams with a larger shear span-to-
depth ratio have less shear resisting
capacity and larger shear ductility.
Beams CS and ClO - To evaluate
the effects of concrete compressive
strength, Beam C 10 was made of
higher strength concrete than Beam
C5, with.fc'= 7050 psi (48.6 MPa).
The test results showed that the
compressive strength of concrete had
no significant effect on the ultimate
shear strength of concrete beams with
FRP tendons but had a significant ef-
fect on their ultimate deflection at low
prestressing ratios. As shown in Fig.
15, the load-deflection curve of Beam
ClO was similar to that of Beam C5,
except for a 6 percent higher shear
strength and a 35 percent larger de-
flection at ultimate.
A relatively soft snapping sound
was heard prior to complete failure in
Beam ClO. Examination of Beam ClO
after failure revealed that three wires
in the
1
/z in. (12.5 mm) FRP tendon
and three wires in the
5
h6 in. (7.5 mm)
FRP tendons were broken at the fail-
84
ure shear plane leading to the shear-
tension failure observed. The failure
shear crack angle of Beam C I 0 was
about 35 degrees, while that of Beam
C5 was about 45 degrees.
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of this experimental in-
vestigation, the following conclusions
can be drawn:
1. The shear-tendon rupture failure
is a unique mode of failure, which, un-
less properly designed for, is likely to
occur in concrete beams prestressed
with FRP tendons . This premature
failure is due to tendon rupture by
dowel shear at the shear-cracking
plane. It is attributed to the poor resis-
tance of FRP tendons in the transverse
direction and their brittle behavior.
2. The ultimate shear resisting ca-
pacity of beams prestressed with FRP
tendons was about 15 percent less than
that of beams prestressed with steel
tendons, regardless of their shear fail-
ure mode.
3. The shear-tendon rupture failure
occurred at the flexural-shear-cracking
plane in beams with FRP tendons,
even when the effective prestress ratio
was low (about 40 percent) and there-
quired amount of steel stirrups was
provided according to the ACI Code.
4. Adding steel fibers is a possible
way to improve the shear resistance of
concrete beams prestressed with FRP
tendons by avoiding or delaying shear-
tendon rupture failure.
5. Differences in the properties of
FRP and steel tendons appear to have
no significant effect on the initial por-
tion of load-deflection response of
prestressed concrete beams subjected
to a center point loading with a shear
span-to-depth ratio of 2.5.
6. The ultimate shear displacement
and crack width of prestressed beams
that failed by shear-tendon rupture
were about one-third and one-half, re-
spectively, of those of similar beams
with steel tendons. For all beams
tested, an almost linear relationship
was observed between the shear crack
width and the differential shear dis-
placement at the critical shear-crack-
ing plane.
7. Although only one specimen was
tested for each parameter, the follow-
ing observations were made for beams
prestressed with FRP tendons:
Increasing the shear span-to-depth
ratio from 1.5 to 3.5 led to a de-
crease in shear resistance but an in-
crease in shear ductility (displace-
ment).
Adding stirrups in sufficient quan-
tity changes the failure mode from
shear-tension to shear-tendon rup-
ture in beams with a low effective
prestress ratio of about 40 percent.
Increasing the compressive strength
of concrete slightly increases the
shear strength and considerably in-
creases the corresponding deflection.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported in part
by the Department of Civil and Envi-
ronmental Engineering at the Univer-
sity of Michigan. The authors are also
grateful to Tokyo Rope Manufacturing
for supplying the carbon fiber rein-
forced plastic strands used in this
study.
PCI JOURNAL
REFERENCES
l. Burgoyne, C. J. , "Properties of Polyaramid Ropes and Implica-
tions for Their Use as External Prestressing Tendons," ACI SP-
120-4, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1990.
2. Podolny, W., Jr. , "Corrosion of Prestressing Steels and Its Miti-
gation," PCI JOURNAL, V. 37. No. 5, September-October
\992, pp. 34-55.
3. Miyata, S., Wakui, H., Tottori, S., and Terada, T., "Shear Ca-
pacity of PC Beams with Spiral FRP Reinforcement," Proceed-
ings of Xlth FIP International Congress on Prestressed Con-
crete, Hamburg, Germany, 1990.
4. Nishikawa, K., Kanda, M., and Uchida, K., "Structural Behav-
ior of Prestressed Concrete Beams Using FRP Tendons," Pro-
ceedings of 9th U.S.-Japan Bridge Engineering Workshop,
Public Works Research Institute, Tsukuba Science City, Japan,
May 1993.
5. Tottori , S., and Wakui, H., "Shear Capacity of RC and PC
Beams Using FRP Reinforcement," FRP Reinforcement for
Concrete Structures, Proceedings of International Symposium
(Editors A. Nanni and C. W. Dolan), ACI SP-138, American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1993, pp. 615-632.
6. Vasiliev, V. V., and Jones, R. M., Mechanics of Composite Struc-
tures, Taylor & Francis, Washington D.C., 1993, pp. 15-20.
7. Jeong, S.M., Naaman, A. E., and Tan, K. H. , "Investigation of
January-February 1999
Beams Partially Prestressed with Carbon Fiber Composite Ten-
dons," Proceedings of Xllth FIP International Congress, Wash-
ington, D.C., 1994, pp. B56-B61.
8. JSCE Research Subcommittee on Continuous Fiber Reinforc-
ing Materials, "Application of Continuous Fiber Reinforcing
Materials to Concrete Structures," International Concrete Li-
brary, No. 19, June 1992, pp. 89-130.
9. ACI Committee 440, "State-of-the-Art Report on Fiber Rein-
forced Plastic Reinforcement for Concrete Structures," Ameri-
can Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1996.
10. Tsai, S. W. , Introduction to Composite Materials, Technomic
Publishing Co., Westport, CT, 1980.
ll. Ueda, T., Sato, Y. , and Kakuta, Y. , "Failure Criteria for FRP
Rods Subjected to a Combination of Tensile and Shear
Forces," Proceedings of the Second International Symposium
on Non-Metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures
(Editor L. Taerwe), Ghent, Belgium, August 1994.
12. Tokyo Rope Manufacturing Co., Ltd., CFCC Technical Data, 1989.
13. ACI Committee 318, "Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-95) and Commentary (ACI 318R-95),"
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Ml, 1995.
14. Naaman, A. E. , Prestressed Concrete Analysis and Design:
Fundamentals, McGraw-Hill , New York, NY 1982, 670 pp.
85