ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 107-S06
Performance Evaluation of Glass Fiber-Reinforced Polymer
Shear Reinforcement for Concrete Beams
by Ehab A. Ahmed, Ehab F. El-Salakawy, and Brahim Benmokrane
Using fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) reinforcing bars as the main
reinforcement for concrete structures in severe environments is
becoming a widely accepted solution to overcome the problem of
steel corrosion and the related deteriorations. Due to the relatively
lower cost of glass FRP (GFRP) bars compared to the other
commercially available FRP bars, the use of GFRP bars in rein-
forced concrete (RC) structures has been widely investigated in the
last few years. This paper reports experimental data on the shear
strength of concrete beams reinforced with GFRP stirrups. A total
of four large-scale RC beams with a total length of 7000 mm
(276 in.) and a T-shaped cross section were constructed and tested
up to failure. The test variables were type and ratio of shear reinforce-
ment (stirrups). The test beams comprised three beams reinforced
with sand-coated GFRP stirrups of 9.5 mm (3/8 in.) diameter
spaced at d/2, d/3, and d/4 (where d is the beam depth), and a
reference beam reinforced with conventional steel stirrups of 9.5 mm
(3/8 in.) diameter spaced at d/2. As designed, the beams failed in
shear due to GFRP stirrup rupture or steel stirrups yielding. ACI
440.1R-06 and the updated version of CAN/CSA S6-06 are able to
predict the shear strength of beams reinforced with GFRP stirrups
with a reasonable accuracy. The analytical approach using
Response 2000 (R2K), which is based on the modified compression
field theory (MCFT), predicted well the shear capacity of the
beams reinforced with GFRP stirrups, but overestimated their
shear crack width.
Keywords: bending; cracking; fiber-reinforced polymers; shear; stirrups.
INTRODUCTION
The use of concrete structures reinforced/prestressed with
fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composite materials has
been growing to overcome the common problems caused by
corrosion of steel reinforcement. The climatic conditions
where large amounts of salts are used for ice removal during
winter months may contribute to accelerating the corrosion
process. These conditions normally accelerate the need for
costly repairs and may lead to catastrophic failure. Therefore,
replacing the steel reinforcement with the noncorrosive FRP
reinforcement eliminates the potential of corrosion and the
associated deterioration. The direct replacement of steel with
FRP bars, however, is not possible due to various differences
in the mechanical properties of the FRP materials compared to
steel, especially the higher tensile strength, the lower modulus
of elasticity, bond characteristics, and the absence of a yielding
plateau in their characteristic stress-strain relationships.
Extensive research programs have been conducted to
investigate the flexural behavior of concrete members rein-
forced with FRP reinforcement.1-4 The shear behavior of
FRP reinforced concrete (RC) beams without shear rein-
forcement has also been studied;5 however, the use of FRP
as shear reinforcement (stirrups) for concrete members has
not been sufficiently explored to provide a rational model
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2010
TECHNICAL PAPER
and yield satisfactory guidelines to predict the shear strength
of concrete members reinforced with FRP stirrups.
Due to the unidirectional characteristics of FRP materials,
bending of FRP bars into stirrup configuration significantly
reduces the strength at the bend portions.6-8 The reduced
strength of the FRP stirrup at the bend is attributed to local
stress concentration at the bend due to curvature and the
intrinsic weakness of fibers perpendicular to their axis. The
bend capacity of FRP bars is influenced by the bending
process, the ratio of bend radius to bar diameter (rb /db), and
type of reinforcing fibers.9 The recent editions of the ACI
440.1R-069 guidelines and the CAN/CSA S6-0610,11 code,
along with the commercially available FRP bent bars,
encouraged the use of FRP stirrups.
Through a collaboration project between the University of
Sherbrooke, the Ministry of Transportation of Quebec
(MTQ), and an FRP manufacturer, new FRP (carbon and
glass) stirrups have been recently developed and characterized
according to B.5 and B.12 test methods of ACI 440.3R-04.12
The behavior of these stirrups in large-scale beam specimens,
however, had not been investigated. To achieve this, an
experimental program was conducted to investigate the shear
performance of FRP stirrups in large-scale beam specimens.
The first phase evaluated the structural performance of
carbon FRP (CFRP) stirrups in beam specimens.13 There is a
recent increase in demand for glass FRP (GFRP) bars because
of its many successful applications, including bridge deck
slabs,14,15 barrier walls,16,17 parking garages,18 continuous
pavement,19 and other concrete structures. Furthermore,
considering the lower costs of GFRP bars in comparison to
CFRP and aramid FRP (AFRP), GFRP reinforcement is
becoming more attractive for the construction industry. There-
fore, a second phase was conducted to study the shear behavior
of concrete beams reinforced with GFRP stirrups. The results of
this phase are presented and discussed herein.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Extensive research in recent years has been undertaken to
investigate the performance of FRP as primary reinforcement
for concrete members; however, limited studies were conducted
on the shear behavior of concrete members reinforced with
FRP stirrups. This paper evaluates the shear performance and
strength of large-scale RC beams reinforced with GFRP stirrups
considering different shear reinforcement ratios. In addition,
the paper examines the accuracy of the recently published
design provisions concerning FRP as shear reinforcement.
ACI Structural Journal, V. 107, No. 1, January-February 2010.
MS No. S-2008-358.R2 received November 12, 2008, and reviewed under Institute
publication policies. Copyright © 2010, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved,
including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
Pertinent discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the November-
December 2010 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by July 1, 2010.
53
 measuring a total height of 700 mm (27.6 in.), a web width
ACI member Ehab A. Ahmed is a Doctoral Candidate in the Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada. He received his BSc of 180 mm (7.1 in.), a flange width of 750 mm (29.5 in.), and
and MSc in civil engineering from the University of Menoufiya, Menoufiya, Egypt. His a flange thickness of 85 mm (3.3 in.). In addition, all beams
research interests include structural analysis, design, and testing of fiber-reinforced were provided with the same longitudinal reinforcement
polymer reinforced concrete structures.
(three layers of three 15.4 mm [0.6 in.] diameter seven-wire
Ehab F. El-Salakawy is an Associate Professor and Canada Research Chair in steel strands) to keep the dowel effect and the longitudinal
Advanced Composite Materials and Monitoring of Civil Infrastructures in the stiffness unchanged. The high-strength steel strands and the
Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB,
Canada. His research interests include large-scale experimental testing and T-shaped cross section were selected to make the flexural
finite element modeling of reinforced concrete structure. capacity greater than the shear strength of the beam. In this
Brahim Benmokrane, FACI, is an NSERC Research Chair Professor in Innovative
case, shear failure is expected, which allows the use of the
FRP Composite Materials for Infrastructures in the Department of Civil Engineering full capacity of the stirrups. Figure 1 shows the geometry and
at the University of Sherbrooke. He is a member of ACI Committee 440, Fiber reinforcement details of the test specimens.
Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement.
The transverse reinforcement consisted of 9.5 mm (3/8 in.)
diameter GFRP stirrups for three beams—SG-9.5-2, SG-9.5-3,
SHEAR DESIGN PROVISIONS and SG-9.5-4—and 9.5 mm (3/8 in.) diameter steel stirrups
Table 1 summarizes some of the shear design provisions for the fourth beam, SS-9.5-2. The stirrups’ spacing for the
for RC members reinforced with FRP stirrups. These design three beams reinforced with GFRP stirrups were 300, 200,
provisions are based on the traditional equation that estimates and 150 mm (11.8, 7.9, and 5.9 in.), which represent d/2, d/3, and
the shear strength of a concrete member as a summation of
the concrete and stirrup contributions (Vc + VFRP) to the
shear-carrying capacity. However, the stress level in the FRP
transverse reinforcement (stirrups) is generally limited to
controlling shear crack widths, maintaining shear integrity of
the concrete, and avoiding failure at the bent portion of the
FRP stirrup.9 Therefore, the tensile strain in FRP transverse
reinforcement is limited to ensure that such an approach
is applicable.9-11 The design provisions listed in Table 1
were used to predict the shear-carrying capacity of the test
specimens and then compared to the experimental results.

EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
Test specimens
A total of four large-scale RC beams, including three
beams reinforced with GFRP stirrups and one with steel
stirrups, were constructed and tested. The 7.0 m (275.6 in.)
long beams had a T-shaped cross section (simulating the New
England Bulb Tee (NEBT) beams that are being used by the Fig. 1—Dimensions and reinforcement details of test specimens.
Ministry of Transportation of Quebec [MTQ], Canada) (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)

Table 1—Shear design provisions of FRP reinforced concrete sections

Reference Shear provisions Reference Shear provisions

1000 100ρ fl E fl ⎛
------------ 3 ---------------------- 1 + ------o-⎞ -------------
M f vcd bd
Vc = - (1)
Es ⎝ Md ⎠ γ b
4
d V c = 2.5βφ c f cr bd v E fl ⁄ E s (11)
where 4
1000 ⁄ d and 3 100ρ fl E fl ⁄ E s ≤ 1.5
1⁄3
f vcd = 0.2 ( f c′ ) ≤ 0.72 N/mm
2
(2) V FRP = (φ frp A fv f fv d v cotθ ) ⁄ s (12)

V FRP = [ A fv E fv ε fv ( sin α s + cosα s ) ⁄ s ] ⁄ z ⁄ γ b (3) β = 0.4 ⁄ ( 1 + 1500ε x ) × 1300 ⁄ ( 1000 + S ze ) (13)

CSA S6-06
JSCE (1997)20 ρ fl E fl σN f bend
ε fv = 10
–4
′ -------------
f mcd - ≤ ---------
1 + 2 --------- - (4) (2006)9 θ = ( 29 + 7000ε x ) ( 0.88 + S ze ⁄ 2500 ) (14)
ρ fv E fv ′
f mcd E fv

ε x = [ ( M f ⁄ d v ) + V f ] ⁄ 2 ( E s A s ) ≤ 0.003 (15)
f bend = ( 0.05r b ⁄ d b + 0.3 )f fuv ⁄ γ mfb (5)
ffv is the least value obtained by Eq. (16) and (17)
ffv = (0.05rb/db + 0.3)ffuv /1.5 (16)
– 1 ⁄ 10
′
f mcd = ( h ⁄ 300 ) f cd′ (6) –4 ρ fl E fl σ
E fv ε fv = 10 ′ f c′ ------------- 1 + 2 -----N- ≤ 0.0025E fv (17)
ρ fv E fv f c′

V c = ( 2 ⁄ 5 ) f c′ bc; where c = kd (7) The same as CSA S6-06 (2006),9 except

the following changes:
ACI 440.1R-06 VFRP = Afv ffvd/s (8) CSA S6-06
(2006)8 ffv = 0.004Efv ≤ fbend (9) (2009)10 Eq. (11) becomes Vc = 2.5βφc fcr bdv (11-1)

f bend = ( 0.05r b ⁄ d b + 0.3 )f fuv ⁄ 1.5 ≤ f fuv (10) Eq. (17) becomes ffv = 0.004Efv (17-1)
Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 kN = 0.225 kips; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.

54 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2010

d/4, where d is the effective beam depth. The steel stirrups for Instrumentation, test setup, and procedure
Beam SS-9.5-2, however, were spaced at 300 mm (11.8 in.) The strains in the flexural reinforcement, concrete, and
(d/2). Because those beam specimens are part of an extensive stirrups located in the shear span were measured using electrical
research program, the specimen designation can be explained resistance strain gauges. The deflection of the beam was
as follows. The first letter, S, indicates longitudinal reinforcement measured using four LVDTs placed at the midspan, and at
type (S for steel), while the second letter indicates the material of midshear span. The shear crack width was monitored during
the stirrups (G for GFRP, and S for steel). The number in the the test by visual inspection until the first crack appeared,
middle, 9.5, indicates the diameter of the stirrups, and the which was initially measured using a hand-held microscope
last number represents the spacing of the stirrups (2 for d/2; with a magnifying power of 50×. Then, six high-accuracy
3 for d/3; 4 for d/4). Table 2 presents the flexural and shear LVDTs (±0.001 mm) were installed in the position of the
reinforcement details of the test specimens. shear crack (three at each shear span). The formation and
propagation of the cracks on each beam and corresponding
Material properties loads were marked and recorded during the test.
The test specimens were cast in the laboratory at the
University of Sherbrooke using ready mixed normalweight
concrete (concrete Type V, MTQ) with a 28-day target
compressive strength of 35 MPa (5.08 ksi). Table 2 also
presents the concrete properties of test specimens.
GFRP stirrups, No.10 (9.5 mm [3/8 in.] diameter), made of
continuous longitudinal glass fibers preimpregnated in a
thermosetting vinyl ester resin and winding process with a
fiber content of 78.8% (by weight), were used as shear
reinforcement. The GFRP stirrups had a sand-coated surface
to enhance bond performance between bars and surrounding
concrete. The stirrups have an overall height of 640 mm
(25.2 in.), width of 140 mm (5.5 in.), and bend radius rb of
38.1 mm (1.5 in.) (4db where db is the bar diameter). Figure 2 Fig. 2—Details of GFRP and steel stirrups: (a) GFRP stirrups;
shows the stirrups’ details. The tensile capacity and modulus of and (b) steel stirrups. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
elasticity of the straight portions, directly cut from the GFRP
stirrups, were 664 ± 25 MPa (96.31 ± 3.63 ksi) (COV =
3.8%) and 45 ± 2 GPa (6526 ± 290 ksi) (COV = 4.4%),
respectively. The bend capacity of the stirrups was determined
using the B.5 test method specified by ACI 440.3R-04.12 The
measured strength of the GFRP stirrups at the bend was 387 ±
15 MPa (56.13 ± 2.18 ksi) (COV = 3.9%), which represents
58% of the tensile strength of GFRP straight portions.
Deformed steel bars, No. 15M (15.9 mm [5/8 in.] diameter)
and No. 10M (11.3 mm [0.44 in.] diameter), were used for
the top of the web and flange reinforcement, respectively (Fig. 1).
The yield stress and modulus of elasticity for those steel bars
were 450 MPa and 200 GPa (65.27 and 29,007 ksi), respectively.
Additionally, 9.5 mm (3/8 in.) diameter plain steel bars were
used to fabricate the stirrups for the control beam (Fig. 2).
The yield stress and modulus of elasticity were 576 MPa
and 200 GPa (83.54 and 29,007 ksi), respectively. The tensile
strength and modulus of elasticity of the seven-wire strands
(15.4 mm [0.6 in.] diameter) were 1860 MPa and 200 GPa
(269.77 and 29,007 ksi), respectively. Fig. 3—Details of test setup.

Table 2—Concrete properties and reinforcement details of test specimens

Concrete* Shear reinforcement†
Index
Ratio ρfv = E
Test Flexural Diameter, Spacing, ρ fv ------fv
specimen fc′, MPa fcr , MPa Ec , MPa reinforcement Material mm mm Efv , GPa Afv /bs, % ffuv , MPa fbend , MPa Es
SS-9.5-2 40.8 3.22 24,700 Steel 9.5 300 Es = 200 ρs = 0.262 fy = 576 — 0.262
SG-9.5-2 39.5 3.19 23,084 Nine strands of GFRP 9.5 300 45 ± 2 0.262 664 ± 25 387 ± 15 0.060
15.4 mm
SG-9.5-3 41.0 2.91 22,348 (0.6 in.) diameter GFRP 9.5 200 45 ± 2 0.394 664 ± 25 387 ± 15 0.090
SG-9.5-4 33.5 2.65 18,861 GFRP 9.5 150 45 ± 2 0.526 664 ± 25 387 ± 15 0.120
*Based on 150 × 300 mm cylinder testing, where fc′ is concrete compressive strength; fcr is concrete tensile strength; and Ec is concrete modulus of elasticity.
†E is modulus of elasticity of shear reinforcement; f
fv fuv is ultimate tensile strength parallel to fiber direction; fbend is strength of FRP stirrup at bend; and fy is yield strength of steel.
Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 kN = 0.225 kips; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2010 55

 The beams were tested in four-point bending over a simply
supported clear span of 6000 mm (236 in.), leaving 500 mm
(20 in.) at each end to prevent any premature anchorage
failure of the longitudinal reinforcement. The point load was
located at a distance of 2000 mm (78.7 in.) from the support,
which corresponds to a shear span-depth ratio of 3.33. The
load was applied through a 1000 kN (224.81 kip) capacity
actuator and a spreader beam. A load-controlled rate of
5.0 kN/min (1.12 kips/min) was used up to 90% of the
expected failure load. Thereafter, the load was applied at
a displacement-controlled rate of 0.6 mm/min (0.023 in./min) to
avoid any accidental problems associated with the sudden
and brittle shear failure. The complete test setup is shown
in Fig. 3. During the test, loads, strain gauges, and LVDT

Fig. 4—Failure of test specimens: (a) SG-9.5-2 (GFRP @ d/2); (b) SG-9.5-3 (GFRP @ d/3);
(c) SG-9.5-4 (GFRP @ d/4); and (d) SS-9.5-2 (steel @ d/2).

Table 3—Summary of test results

Shear cracking Maximum stirrup strain,
Average stirrup
load,* Vcr, Ultimate shear, Angle of major vtest =Vtest /bd, microstrain
strain at failure,
Test specimen kN (kips) Vtest , kN (kips) crack, θ, degrees MPa (ksi) Straight portion Bend microstrain Mode of failure†
SS-9.5-2 64 (14.39) 272 (61.15) 44 2.76 (0.40) 9330 — 5361 SY
SG-9.5-2 60 (13.49) 259 (58.23) 46 3.40 (0.49) 13,400 6840 8890 GR
SG-9.5-3 57 (12.81) 337 (75.76) 42 3.12 (0.45) 13,600 5560‡ 8260 GR
SG-9.5-4 56 (12.59) 416 (93.52) 44 3.85 (0.56) 13,100 8000 8350 GR
*
Corresponding to appearance of first shear crack. Determined from slope changing of shear-concrete strain relationship and verified using strain gauge readings.
†
SY is steel stirrup yielding; and GR is GFRP stirrup rupture.
‡
Gauge reading at connection between straight and bend portions.
Note: Both shear cracking load and ultimate shear did not include self-weight of beam.

56 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2010

readings were recorded using two data acquisition systems.
More details on test specimens, materials, instrumentation of
the specimens, and test procedure can be found elsewhere.19
Test results and discussion
The summary of the test results regarding the shear
capacity of test specimens, maximum strains, angle of the
major shear crack, and mode of failure are summarized in
Table 3. Detailed analysis and discussion of the results,
however, are introduced in the following section.
Capacity and mode of failure
Because the test specimens were designed to fail in shear,
the ultimate shear strength of the test specimens was
governed by the stirrup’s strength. Despite the difference in
the load level at which shear failure of beams reinforced with
GFRP stirrups (SG-9.5-2, SG-9.5-3, and SG-9.5-4) took
place, a similar failure mechanism was observed. Diagonal
tension failure occurred suddenly for the three beams due to
the rupture of GFRP stirrups. The test specimens failed at a
corresponding applied shear force equal to 259, 337, and 416 kN
(58.23, 75.76, and 93.52 kips) for SG-9.5-2 and SG-9.5-3,
and SG-9.5-4, respectively. Even though the SS-9.5-2 beam
(with steel stirrups) also failed in shear, the shear failure was
initiated by stirrup yielding. Then, the shear cracks started to
widen rapidly as the applied load increased due to the post-
yielding plastic behavior of the steel bars. Finally, a concrete
Fig. 5—Cracking pattern at failure for test specimens. (Note:
1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2010
crushing at the top flange of the beam near the loading point
occurred at a shear force of 272 kN (61.15 kips). Figure 4
shows photographs of the test specimens at failure, while Fig. 5
schematically shows the final crack patterns of the tested
beams at failure with the failure shear plane and its inclina-
tion angle highlighted. The failure plane of Beam SG-9.5-2
was the closest to the loading point with the steepest inclina-
tion angle. The other two beams reinforced with higher ratios of
GFRP stirrups (SG-9.5-3 and SG-9.5-4) failed at a plane close to
the midshear span. The main difference in final crack patterns
between the three beams was the number and spacing of diagonal
cracks developed in the shear span. The higher the failure
load, the greater the number of induced shear cracks.
Deflection
As expected, the shear failure was the dominant mode of
failure and all specimens failed in shear prior to reaching
their flexural capacity. Figure 6 shows the applied shear
force-deflection relationship for the tested beams at two
locations: at midspan and in the middle of the shear span. The
beams showed similar behavior and there was no significant
difference between the beams with different GFRP stirrups
spacing and the reference beam with steel stirrups, except
SG-9.5-2, which showed higher deflection values than
other beams.
Flexural strains
The relationships between the applied shear force and the
flexural strains (longitudinal reinforcement and concrete) at
the midspan of all beams are shown in Fig. 7. As noticed in
the deflection curves (Fig. 6), there was no significant difference
in flexural strains among the tested beams. There was also no
evidence of the yielding of longitudinal reinforcement or
crushing of concrete.
Strains in GFRP stirrups
The maximum stirrup strains for different beams are
included in Table 3, whereas Fig. 8 shows the applied shear
force-average stirrup strain relationships considering the
strains from the stirrup located in the beam end where the
shear failure occurred. The average strains were calculated
from the stirrups located within a distance equal to 0.7 the
shear span a, measured from the loading point (four, six, and
eight strain gauges for the beams with stirrup spacing equal
to d/2, d/3, and d/4, respectively). The stirrups close to the
Fig. 6—Applied shear force-deflection relationship for test
specimens.
57
support were excluded from the average because their strain
was very small in comparison with the remaining stirrups in
the shear span. Besides, any shear cracks intersecting these
stirrups usually appeared at loading stages close to failure.
Generally, the larger the stirrup spacing, the higher the
stirrup strain at all loading levels. The maximum stirrup
strain in the straight portion of the GFRP stirrup, measured
at failure, was 13,400, 13,600, and 13,100 microstrains for
SG-9.5-2, SG-9.5-3, and SG-9.5-4, respectively. These
strain values correspond to approximately 92% of the GFRP
straight portion’s strength. The maximum strain at the bend,
however, was 8000 microstrain from Beam SG-9.5-4, which
corresponds to 93% of the bend strength. This is in good
agreement with the bend strength of the GFRP stirrups
determined based on the B.5 test method,12 which was
387 MPa (56.13 ksi) (corresponding to 8600 microstrain). It
is worth mentioning that although all test conditions for all
beams were identical, there was a small difference between
the average stirrup strains in the two shear spans of the same
beam. Herein, the average stirrup strains obtained from the
shear span where the shear failure occurred was considered.
From the comparison presented in Fig. 8, it can be noticed
that all beams showed the same behavior at early loading
stages. Following shear cracking and with increasing loads,
Beam SS-9.5-2 (with steel stirrups at d/2) showed the
smallest average strain values compared to the other beams
reinforced with GFRP stirrups. This may be referred to the
higher shear reinforcement index (ρfyEfy/Es) for that beam
compared to the others with GFRP stirrups. The shear
reinforcement index of SG-9.5-4 was approximately 50% of
the SS-9.5-2 (0.12 and 0.26 for SG-9.5-4 and SS-9.5-2,
respectively), but it did not show a significant difference in
Fig. 7—Applied shear force-flexural strains relationship.
Fig. 8—Applied shear force-average stirrup strain relationship.
58
the average strain values until the yielding of the steel stirrups. This
indicates the dependency of the shear behavior not only on the
modulus of elasticity, but also on other mechanical properties
such as the bond characteristics of the shear reinforcement.
This issue should be further investigated.
Corresponding to an average strain in the GFRP stirrups
equalling 2500 microstrain (the strain limit specified by the
CHBDC, CSA S6-0610), the applied shear forces were 173,
185, and 218 kN (38.89, 41.56, and 49.01 kips) for SG-9.5-2,
SG-9.5-3, and SG-9.5-4, respectively (Fig. 8). These values
represent 67%, 55%, and 52% of the observed failure loads
of the test specimens, respectively. They also represent
122%, 116%, and 122%, respectively, of the predicted shear
capacity using CHBDC provisions.10 On the other hand, the
calculated stirrup strains based on the CHBDC CSA S6-06
(2006)10 (Eq. (17)) are 2500 (the code upper limit), 2104,
and 2013 microstrain corresponding to average stresses of
112.5, 94.7, and 90.6 MPa (16.32, 13.74, and 13.14 ksi),
respectively. These average stresses represent 17%, 14%,
and 14% of the GFRP stirrup strength parallel to the fiber
direction and 30%, 24%, and 23% of the bend strength of
the stirrups for SG-9.5-2, SG-9.5-3, and SG-9.5-4, respec-
tively. Therefore, limiting the ultimate strain in an FRP
stirrup to 2500 microstrain leads to unduly conservative
predictions of the shear capacity of concrete members rein-
forced with GFRP stirrups.
Increasing this limit strain to 4000 microstrain, as
recommended by ACI 440.1R-069 and the updated CHBDC
CSA S6-06 (2009),11 the observed applied shear force was
193, 225, and 257 kN (43.39, 50.58, and 57.78 kips), corre-
sponding to 75%, 67% and 62% of the failure load for SG-
9.5-2, SG-9.5-3, and SG-9.5-4, respectively. The aforemen-
tioned strain limit represents approximately 25% of the
strain capacity of the majority of the commercially available
GFRP products.
The strain distribution in the shear span, where failure
occurred, is plotted using the strain gauge reading versus the
stirrup position for Beam SG-9.5-2, as shown in Fig. 9. It can
be noticed that the strain in the stirrups along the shear span
is affected by the cracking pattern and the position of both
the stirrup and strain gauge with respect to the crack. Near a
Fig. 9—Stirrup strain distribution along shear span of SG-9.5-2
beam (GFRP @ d/2). (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2010
crack, the measured strain is higher than the average. Some crack width. FRP design provisions, however, limit the
of the stirrups did not show a very high stress level at early values for the strain in FRP stirrups as a method to control
loading stages until the shear cracks were stabilized. The the shear crack width.
highest stress levels were measured in the GFRP stirrups Figure 11 shows the relationship between the applied
located at the middle third of the shear span with an average shear force and the measured maximum shear crack width
strain of 8890 microstrain. (the failure shear crack). From Fig. 11, it can be seen that
Beam SG-9.5-2 (GFRP at d/2) showed very large crack
Effect of stirrup spacing width in comparison to the other three beams. The lesser the
In general, beams with smaller stirrup spacing showed spacing between the GFRP stirrups, the smaller the crack
higher shear capacity and lower transverse strain at any width at the same loading level. Although SG-9.5-3 and
given load. Based on the traditional 45 degree truss model, SS-9.5-2 do not have the same shear reinforcement index,
stress in the FRP stirrup at failure, ffv, was determined from both beams showed almost the same load-shear crack width
the following equation,9 considering the reduction factor φ behavior up to the yielding of the steel stirrup. This is
equal to 1.0 referred to the good bond performance of sand-coated GFRP
stirrups as well as the closer stirrup spacing.
( V test – φV cr )s
φf fv = ----------------------------------
- (18) COMPARISON OF PREDICTIONS
A fv d AND EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
The shear design provisions listed in Table 1 were used to
where Afv is the area of the FRP stirrups, s is the stirrup predict the shear strength of the tested beams. Table 4 presents a
spacing, and d is the effective depth of the beam. Figure 10 comparison between the experimentally obtained shear
shows the effective stress in the FRP stirrups at failure with strength and the predicted strengths. From Table 4, it is clear
respect to the ultimate strength ffuv for the different stirrup that both CSA-S6-06 (2006)10 and JSCE21 shear provisions
spacings s used in this study. The effective stirrup stress ffv greatly underestimate the shear strength of the test specimens.
at failure, with respect to the ultimate strength of the stirrups, This is due to the common concept used in calculating the
ffuv, (parallel to the fiber direction) was 105%, 99%, and 95% FRP stirrup contribution (VFRP). The stirrup strength is
for Beams SG-9.5-2, SG-9.5-3, and SG-9.5-4, respectively. limited to the least of the bend strength of the FRP stirrups
The lesser the spacing of the FRP stirrups, the lower the or the results of Eq. (16) and (17) for CHBDC CSA S6-06
effective stirrup stresses because there is a higher probability (2006),10 or Eq. (4) and (5) for JSCE.21 The upper limit of
for the diagonal shear cracks to intersect the bend zones of
the FRP stirrups, as evident in Fig. 10. This was demonstrated in
the study by Shehata et al.7 that used three other beams reinforced
with CFRP stirrups with different spacings. The effective
stirrup stress at failure with respect to the ultimate strength
of the stirrups, ffuv, in these beams was 76%, 67%, and 56%
corresponding to stirrups spacing equal to d/2, d/3, and d/4,
respectively. The main reason for the difference between the
two results (the current study versus that by Shehata et al.7)
may be referred to bend strength relative to the straight
portion strength. In the current study, the bend strength of
GFRP stirrups was 58% of the GFRP straight portion
strength; however, this ratio was 46% for the work done by
Shehata et al.7 using CFRP stirrups. It can be concluded that
providing FRP stirrups, with a strength ratio of bend-to-
straight portion fbend/ffuv ≥ 0.6, results in reaching the full
capacity of both straight and bend portions simultaneously.
In other words, using FRP stirrups with lower bend strength Fig. 10—Effect of stirrup spacing on effective capacity of
results in a failure governed by the bend strength, and the FRP stirrups.
capacity of the straight portions of the FRP stirrups could not
be used. Other factors that may have an impact on effective
stress values are the configuration of the stirrups, modulus of
elasticity, and bond characteristics.

Shear crack width

In steel-reinforced concrete sections, the flexural crack
width is limited in most design codes to protect the steel bars
from corrosion and to maintain the aesthetical shape of the
structure; however, there are no specified limits for the shear
crack width. Unlike steel reinforcement, FRP is noncorridible by
nature and, therefore, limits for crack width of FRP reinforced
concrete elements may be directly related to aesthetic
consideration. Similar to steel design provisions, the FRP
design provisions and guidelines specify relaxed limits for
width of flexural cracks with no specific limits for the shear Fig. 11—Applied shear force-shear crack width relationship.

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2010 59

Eq. (17) is 2500 microstrain, which is very conservative, and
the equation itself often yields a strain value less than that
limit, especially for FRP stirrups with a high modulus of
elasticity.13 On the other hand, the JSCE21 relaxed the upper
limit of this equation (Eq. (4)) to the bend capacity of the
FRP stirrups; however, the equation itself still governs the
design. On contrary, using a constant strain value for all
types of FRP stirrups, as recommended by ACI 440.1R-06,9
yields more reasonable yet conservative results.
Considering the updated version of the CHBDC CSA S6-06
(2009),11 the predicted shear strength using Eq. (17-1) (the
same as that of ACI 440.1R-069; refer to Eq. (9) in Table 1) is in
good agreement with the experimental values. The average
Vexp./Vpred. is 1.77 with a standard deviation of 0.09 and a
COV of only 5% (Table 4). This indicates that the current
ACI 440.1R-069 equation, which will be adopted by CHBDC
CSA S6-06 (2009)11 for the FRP stirrup strain at ultimate,
provides a reasonable level of conservativeness for predicting the
shear capacity of RC members with GFRP stirrups. On the other
hand, the CHBDC CSA S6-06 (2006)10 underestimates
the inclination angle of the shear crack for beams reinforced
with GFRP stirrups.

MCFT-BASED SHEAR STRENGTH PREDICTION

Fig. 12—Comparison between experimental and analytical
prediction (MCFT) of shear strength using Response 2000.22
Fig. 13—Comparison between experimental and analytical
prediction (MCFT) of shear crack width using Response
2000.22
The three beams reinforced with GFRP stirrups were
modeled using the Response 2000 (R2K),22 which is based
on the modified compression field theory (MCFT).23 Both
member response analysis and sectional analysis were used
in R2K to predict the behavior of the beams. Unlike steel
reinforcement, the FRP stirrups have two different character-
istic values: the tensile strength parallel to the fiber direction
(straight portions), and the bend strength. When the section
response analysis was used, the bend strength was defined as
the governing ultimate stress for the GFRP stirrups. This
assumption was based on the experimentally observed strain
values (the bend strength of the GFRP stirrups was achieved
while the corresponding stress in the straight portions was
not reached). On the other hand, when the full member
response was used, the ultimate strength of the straight
portion of the GFRP stirrups was defined as the governing
material strength. A comparison between the predicted and
experimental values using both methods is presented in Fig.
12. It can be seen that both methods are capable of predicting
the shear strength of the beams reinforced with GFRP stirrups.
However, the full member response yielded a conservative
shear strength with an average Vexp./Vpred. equal to 1.15 ± 0.12
and a corresponding COV equal to 10%. It is worth mentioning
that when the sectional analysis method is used, it is important
to select the section at which the calculations are performed.
This is controlled through the moment/shear (M/V) ratio
because both the initial values for moment M and shear V are
user input data. Bentz22 recommended using the section
located at a distance dv from the loading point, which was
used in this study. When the full member response was
employed, the limiting stress of the stirrups was entered as
664 MPa (96.31 ksi) and, from the results corresponding to
the failure shear load, the average stress in the GFRP stirrups
was 325 MPa (47.14 ksi) while the stress in the GFRP stir-
rups at the intersection with the shear crack was 664 MPa
(96.31 ksi) (the stirrup capacity). On the contrary, in the
sectional analysis and corresponding to stress equalling
387 MPa (47.14 ksi) in the GFRP stirrups, the stress in the

Table 4—Predicted shear strength of test specimens

Experimental
JSCE (1997)20 ACI 440.1R-068 CSA S6-06 (2006)9 CSA S6-06 (2009)10*
Test specimen Vexp., kN (kips) θ, degree Vexp./Vpred Vexp./Vpred Vexp./Vpred θ, degree Vexp./Vpred θ, degree
SS-9.5-2 272 (61.15) 44 — — 1.14 41.0 1.14 41.0
SG-9.5-2 259 (58.23) 46 2.17 1.74 1.85 36.2 1.69 36.9
SG-9.5-3 337 (75.76) 42 2.63 1.90 2.12 34.2 1.75 35.3
SG-9.5-4 416 (93.52) 44 3.33 2.09 2.34 34.8 1.87 36.2
— † 2.71 ± 0.59 1.91 ± 0.17 2.10 ± 0.25 — 1.77 ± 0.09 —
Average
*Using Eq. (17-1) instead of Eq. (17).
†
Average for beams reinforced with GFRP stirrups.
Note: Both Vexp. and Vpred. include contribution of concrete and FRP stirrups (Vc + VFRP).

60 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2010

GFRP stirrups exceeded 664 MPa (96.31 ksi) at the intersection NOTATION
with the shear crack, which is the straight portion strength. Afv = total cross-sectional area of shear reinforcement, mm2
Ag = total cross-sectional area of member, mm2
The shear crack width calculated based on the MCFT analysis As = area of cross section of steel or FRP reinforcing bars, mm2
is shown in Fig. 13. Although the MCFT predicted well the a = shear span, mm
shear strength of RC beams reinforced with GFRP beams, it b = beam width, mm
was not able to accurately predict the shear crack width. c = neutral axis depth, mm
d = distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of tension
reinforcement, mm
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS db = bar diameter, mm
The experimental results concerning the shear behavior of dv = effective shear depth for longitudinal reinforcement, mm
large-scale beams reinforced with GFRP stirrups are presented Efl = modulus of elasticity of longitudinal reinforcement, MPa
and discussed. The main variables were type and ratio of the shear Efv = modulus of elasticity of shear reinforcement, MPa
reinforcement. GFRP stirrups, 9.5 mm (3/8 in.) in diameter and Es = modulus of elasticity of steel, MPa
fc ′ = compressive strength of concrete, MPa
sand-coated, were used as shear reinforcement in three beams fbend = strength of bent portion of FRP bar, MPa
with different stirrup spacings. For comparison, one specimen fcr = cracking strength of concrete, MPa
was reinforced with steel stirrups. The GFRP stirrups had a ffuv = tensile strength of straight portion of shear reinforcement, MPa
tensile strength of 664 MPa (96.31 ksi) and a modulus of ffv = vertical stress in FRP stirrups, MPa
f ′mcd = design compressive strength of concrete allowing for size effect, MPa
elasticity of 45 GPa (6526 ksi), and the bend strength was h = total depth of member, mm
387 MPa (47.14 ksi). The experimental and predicted results 2
were compared considering the shear design provisions k = 2ρ fl n f + ( ρ fl n f ) – ρ fl n f
provided by ACI 440.1R-06,9 CAN/CSA S6-06,10,11 and Md = design bending moment, N·mm
Mf = factored moment at a section, N·mm
JSCE.21 The shear behavior of the test specimens was also Mo = decompression moment, N·mm
predicted using the MCFT and was compared with the Nd′ = design axial compression force, N
experimental results. The main findings of this investigation Nf = factored axial load normal to cross section occurring simultaneously
can be summarized as follows: with Vf , including effects of tension due to creep and shrinkage, N
1. The presence of GFRP stirrups in the beam specimens, nf = modular ratio
rb = internal bend radius of the FRP stirrups, mm
similar to steel stirrups, enhances the concrete contribution s = spacing of shear reinforcement, mm
after the formation of the first shear crack. The lesser the sz = crack spacing parameter
spacing of the GFRP stirrups, the higher the shear resistance s ze = equivalent crack spacing parameter; shall not be taken less
enhancement due to the confinement, which controls the than 0.85s z
shear cracks and improves the aggregate interlocking. Vc = factored shear resistance provided by concrete, N
Vf = factored shear force at section, N
2. At shear failure, the inclination angle of the shear crack VFRP = factored shear resistance provided by FRP shear reinforcement, N
in concrete beams reinforced with GFRP stirrups was in z = distance between points of action of tensile and compressive
good agreement with the traditional 45-degree truss model. resultant forces; equal to d/1.15, mm
3. The beam reinforced with steel stirrups showed the least αs = angle between shear reinforcement and axis of beam (in degrees)
εfv = strain in an FRP stirrup
strain at the same loading level in comparison with its εx = longitudinal strain at midheight of cross section
counterparts reinforced with GFRP stirrups. This may be γb = safety factor = 1.3
due to the high shear reinforcement index (ρfvEfv/Es) for γmfb = safety factor for bent portion = 1.3
steel stirrups. The beam with steel stirrups, however, did θ = angle of inclination of principal diagonal compressive stress (in
not show the smallest shear crack width. This may be degrees)
ρfl = flexural reinforcement ratio for FRP bars
attributed to the difference in bond characteristics ρfv = shear reinforcement ratio for FRP stirrups
between steel and GFRP. ρs = shear reinforcement ratio for steel stirrups
4. Using FRP stirrups with a strength ratio of bend-to- σN = stress in concrete due to axial loads, MPa
straight portion, fbend/ffuv, ≥ 0.6 enables using the capacity of
the straight portions of the FRP stirrups in beam specimens. REFERENCES
Lower ratios will cause the bend strength to govern the 1. Benmokrane, B.; Chaallal, O.; and Masmoudi, R., “Flexural Response
of Concrete Beams Reinforced with FRP Reinforcing Bars,” ACI
stirrup whatever the tensile strength of the straight portion is. Structural Journal, V. 93, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1996, pp. 46-55.
5. Limiting the ultimate strain of the FRP stirrup as specified 2. Intelligent Sensing for Innovative Structures (ISIS), “Reinforcing
by the ACI 440.1R-069 and the updated CHBDC CAN/ Concrete Structures with Fibre Reinforced Polymers (ISISM03-07),”
CSA S6-06 (2009)11 enables a more accurate but still Canadian Network of Centers of Excellence on Intelligent Sensing for
conservative prediction of the shear strength of concrete Innovative Structures, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada,
2007, pp. 10.1-10.12.
members reinforced with GFRP stirrups. 3. El-Salakawy, E., and Benmokrane, B., “Serviceability of Concrete
6. The detailed analysis using R2K,22 which is based on Bridge Deck Slabs Reinforced with Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composite
the MCFT, predicted well the shear capacity of beams Bars,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 101, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 2004, pp. 727-736.
reinforced with GFRP stirrups; however, it was not able 4. Gravina, R. J., and Smith, S. T., “Flexural Behavior of Indeterminate
to accurately predict the crack width of these beams. Concrete Beams Reinforced with FRP Bars,” Journal of Engineering
Structures, V. 30, No. 9, 2008, pp. 2370-2380.
5. El-Sayed, A. K.; El-Salakawy, E. F.; and Benmokrane, B., “Shear
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Strength of FRP-Reinforced Concrete Beams without Transverse Reinforcement,”
The authors wish to express their gratitude and sincere appreciation to the ACI Structural Journal, V. 103, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2006, pp. 235-243.
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), 6. Maruyama, T.; Honama, M.; and Okmura, H., “Experimental Study
the Canadian Network of Centers of Excellence on Intelligent Sensing for on Tensile Strength of Bent Portion of FRP Rods,” Fiber Reinforced Plastic
Innovative Structures (ISIS Canada), Fonds québécois de la recherche sur la Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, SP-138, American Concrete Institute,
nature et les technologies (FQRNT), Pultrall Inc. (Thetford Mines, QC, Farmington Hills, MI, 1993, pp. 163-176.
Canada), and the Ministry of Transportation of Québec (MTQ) for financing 7. Shehata, E.; Morphy, R.; and Rizkalla, S., “Fiber Reinforced Polymer
this research work. The authors would like to thank the technical staff in the Shear Reinforcement for Concrete Members: Behavior and Design Guidelines,”
structural laboratory at the University of Sherbrooke for their assistance in Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, V. 27, No. 5, 2000, pp. 859-872.
fabricating and testing the specimens. 8. El-Sayed, A. K.; El-Salakawy, E.; and Benmokrane, B., “Mechanical

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2010 61

and Structural Characterization of New Carbon FRP Stirrups for Concrete
Members,” Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, V. 11, No. 4,
2007, pp. 352-362.
9. ACI Committee 440, “Guide for the Design and Construction of
Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars (ACI 440.1R-06),” American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2006, 44 pp.
10. Canadian Standard Association (CSA), “Canadian Highway Bridge
Design Code (CAN/CSA S6-06),” Rexdale, ON, Canada, 2006, 733 pp.
11. Canadian Standard Association (CSA), “Canadian Highway Bridge Design
Code (CAN/CSA S6-06),” (addendum), Rexdale, ON, Canada, 2009, 13 pp.
12. ACI Committee 440, “Guide Test Methods for Fiber Reinforced
Polymers (FRPs) for Reinforcing or Strengthening Concrete Structures
(ACI 440.3R-04),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
2004, 40 pp.
13. Ahmed, E. A.; El-Salakawy, E. F.; and Benmokrane, B., “Shear
Performance of RC Bridge Girders Reinforced with Carbon FRP Stirrups,”
Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE. (in press)
14. Benmokrane, B.; El-Salakawy, E. F.; El-Ragaby, A.; and Lackey, T.,
“Designing and Testing of Concrete Bridge Decks Reinforced with Glass
FRP Bars,” Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, V. 11, No. 2, 2006,
pp. 217-229.
15. Benmokrane, B.; El-Salakawy, E.; El-Gamal, S. E.; and Sylvain, G.,
“Construction and Testing of an Innovative Concrete Bridge Deck Totally
Reinforced with Glass FRP Bars: Val-Alain Bridge on Highway 20 East,”
Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, V. 12, No. 5, 2007, pp. 632-645.
16. El-Salakawy, E. F.; Benmokrane, B.; Masmoudi, R.; Briére, F.; and
Beaumier, E., “Concrete Bridge Barriers Reinforced with GFRP
Composite Bars,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 100, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2003,
pp. 815-824.
62
17. El-Gamal, S.; Benmokrane, B.; and Goulet, S., “Testing of Concrete
Bridge Barriers Reinforced with New Glass FRP Bars,” Proceedings of the
37th CSCE Annual Conference, Quebec City, QC, Canada, 2008, 10 pp.
(CD-ROM)
18. Benmokrane, B.; El-Salakawy, E. F.; El-Ragaby, A.; and Wisman, A.,
“Rehabilitation of the Structural Slabs of Laurier-Tache Parking Garage
(Gatineau, Quebec) Using Glass FRP Bars,” 35th CSCE Annual
Conference, Calgary, AB, Canada, May 23-26, 2006, 9 pp. (CD-ROM)
19. Benmokrane, B.; Eisa, M.; El-Gamal, S.; El-Salakawy, E.; and
Thebeau, D., “First Use of GFRP Bars as Reinforcement for Continuous
Reinforced Concrete Pavement,” Proceedings of the 4th International
Conference on FRP Composites in Civil Engineering (CICE2008), Zurich,
Switzerland, July 2008, 6 pp. (CD-ROM)
20. Ahmed, E. A.; El-Salakawy, E.; Massicotte, B.; and Benmokrane, B.,
“Shear Behaviour of NEBT Bridge Girders Reinforced with Carbon FRP
Stirrups,” Technical Report Phase 2-B, submitted to Ministry of
Transportation of Quebec, Quebec City, QC, Canada, Mar. 2008, 49 pp.
21. Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE), “Recommendation for
Design and Construction of Concrete Structures using Continuous Fiber
Reinforcing Materials,” Concrete Engineering Series 23, A. Machida, ed.,
Tokyo, Japan, 1997, 325 pp.
22. Bentz, E. C., “Sectional Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Members,”
PhD thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto,
Toronto, ON, Canada, 2000, 184 pp.
23. Collins, M. P., and Vecchio, F. J., “The Modified Compression Field
Theory for Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear,” ACI
JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 83, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1986, pp. 219-231.
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2010