FRPRCS-9 Sydney, Australia

Monday 13 Wednesday 15 July 2009

THE FIB PERSPECTIVE ON FRP REINFORCEMENT IN RC

Kypros PILAKOUTAS 1
1
2

Maurizio GUADAGNINI 1

Kyriacos NEOCLEOUS 1

Stijn Matthys 2

Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, The University of Sheffield, United Kingdom
Magnel Laboratory for Concrete Research, University of Ghent, Belgium

Keywords: bond, design, flexure, FRP, guidelines, reinforced concrete, serviceability, shear.

1 INTRODUCTION
The lack of formal design standards is a significant barrier for the extensive use of FRPs in
construction. The first draft design standards were published in Japan [1-3] followed by design
recommendations in Europe by the EUROCRETE project [4], Canada [5] and United States by the
ACI [6]. The ACI recommendations produced by ACI committee 440 have been revised several times
and a number of European Countries have published their own codes or recommendations for the use
of FRP reinforcement in reinforced concrete (RC) structures as well as for strengthening applications.
The fib (International Federation for Structural Concrete) convened Task Group 9.3 in 1996, under
the leadership of Professor Luc Taerwe, with the aim of developing design guidelines for the design of
concrete structures, reinforced, prestressed or strengthened with advanced composites. In 2000 Task
Group 9.3, together with TMR European Network ConFibreCrete (1997-2001) [7], published Bulletin
14 on externally bonded FRP reinforcement for RC structures [8]. The group collaborated with the
Marie Curie RTN Network En-Core [9] and in 2007 published Bulletin 40, a state-of-the-art report on
design guidelines for FRP reinforced concrete (RC) structures [10]. The group is currently working to
produce the second generation of design guidelines for the use of FRPs as both internal and external
reinforcement.
This paper presents an outline of fib Bulletin 40 and deals with all of the important aspects of
structural behaviour and philosophy focusing primarily on durability, flexural capacity, deflections,
cracking, shear and bond.

2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
2.1 Durability
Although considerable progress has been made towards understanding the deterioration
mechanism of FRP reinforcement in concrete, limited design data is available that can be easily used
by design engineers. The lack of international agreement on FRP durability test methods, variability in
FRP production methods, various fibre/polymer types, research approaches and lack of real-time
performance data further complicates the issue [10]. To develop a sound and practical design
guideline, a scientific link between research test data and FRP design properties is proposed in fib
Bulletin 40, and two durability approaches are examined. The first approach, termed the simplified
durability approach, is based on accelerated ageing under load and residual strength testing and
conforms to the international semi probabilistic safety concept (equation 1). The second approach,
termed the refined durability approach, emerged from the work of fib TG9.3 and accounts for specific
aggressive environments in a similar way as for steel-reinforced concrete design. This latter approach
identifies the main aggressive situations and introduces a series of stress reduction factors to account
for the potential deterioration of FRP in such environments. The factors also allow for the relative
resistance of generic FRP types to aggressive environments and the desired design life of the
structure (Fig. 1). Thus, this approach is considered less conservative than existing methodologies
proposed in international design guidelines.

f fd min (f Test , f fk res / f

(1)

FRPRCS-9 Sydney, Australia

Monday 13 Wednesday 15 July 2009

Strength retention based on stress rupture tests in wet Portland cement mortar

Sustained Stress / Short Term Strength

1,0

0,1
100

env,B
FRP B

env,A

FRP A
1000h
strength
ffk1000h

R10
1 decade
creep rupture
stress limit for
100 years

Testable Time Section

1000

Extrapolation Section
10000

100000

100 years

1000000

Fig. 1 Example of environmental strength reduction factor and 1000h strength for two GFRP materials
with different durability.
2.2 Flexure
It is universally accepted that the basic principles of section analysis also apply to concrete
structures reinforced with FRP, and if all of the other modes of failures are avoided, flexural failure is
attained either due to crushing of the concrete in compression or rupture of the FRP reinforcement in
tension. fib Bulletin 40 adopted the framework of Eurocode 2 [11] for the evaluation of the ultimate
moment resistance (Mu) of FRP RC sections. For flexural failure due to concrete crushing, fib Bulletin
40 provides equations and design charts for the calculation of Mu. If the expected flexural failure is due
to rupture of the FRP reinforcement, fib Bulletin 40 provides an iterative procedure for evaluating the
concrete compressive strain at the extreme fibre and Mu. In addition, a minimum amount of
longitudinal reinforcement is recommended to ensure that Mu is higher than the cracking moment of
the RC section.
2.3 Deflections and cracking
Although when FRP reinforcement is used corrosion is not the main issue, crack widths have to be
controlled to satisfy the requirements of aesthetics and specialised performance. It can be assumed
that the principles behind the verification of deflection and cracking for FRP RC members are similar
to those already established in codes of practice for steel RC members. However, the actual limits
could differ to account for differences in both short and long-term material properties, such as lower
modulus of elasticity of the FRP reinforcement, which leads to larger deformations than in steel RC
members.
fib Bulletin 40 discusses the various cracking models presented by existing international design
guidelines and examines the two main approaches for determining deflections of FRP RC members.
The first one involves modifying the ACI equations which are based on the second moment of area of
cracked and uncracked sections, as originally proposed by Branson. Though there are numerous
modifications and bond correction factors, these empirical modifications lack a fundamental base and
are in general limited in their applications. On the other hand, the approach used by Eurocode 2 (and
Model Code 90) appears to be more fundamental and to be almost directly applicable to FRP RC.
2.4 Shear
Shear behaviour of RC members is a complex phenomenon that relies on the development of
internal carrying mechanisms, the magnitude and combination of which is still a subject of debate.
Nevertheless, it has been recognised that the shear resistance of RC elements is determined mainly
by the contribution offered by the un-cracked compression zone, aggregate interlock, dowel action
and, when provided, shear reinforcement. The development of all of these basic mechanisms,
however, depends not only on the characteristics of the concrete itself, but also on the mechanical
properties of the reinforcing material and the nature of the interaction between concrete and
reinforcement.
The chapter on shear of fib Bulletin 40 examines how the use of FRP reinforcement affects the
various shear resisting mechanisms and how the overall behaviour can be accounted for in the
development of design recommendations that can accommodate effectively the use of this type of
2

FRPRCS-9 Sydney, Australia

Monday 13 Wednesday 15 July 2009

reinforcement. In addition, basic design principles are presented, and the design recommendations of
national and international committees are discussed along with those proposed by members of fib TG
9.3 [12].
2.5 Bond
Bond between concrete and FRP reinforcing bars is the key to developing the composite action of
FRP RC. To secure composite action, sufficient bond must be mobilised between reinforcement and
concrete for the successful transfer of forces from one to the other.
Bond interaction of deformed steel bars is different from that of FRP bars in many ways. In the
case of the deformed steel bars the interaction arises primarily from the mechanical action of the bar
lugs against concrete. Once the tensile stress of the concrete is exceeded this mechanical bond action
leads to primary cracking extending to the surface. In addition, multiple secondary cracks can develop
from the lugs along the length of the bar in between the primary cracks. These secondary cracks
normally are inclined to the primary and get trapped inside the concrete matrix without surfacing. In
the case of FRP bars, with lower elastic modulus and lower surface undulations, bond interaction has
more of a frictional character. Bond failure in steel bars is by crushing of concrete in the vicinity of the
lugs whereas in FRP it is largely caused by partial failure in the concrete and some surface damage
on the FRP.
The bond splitting behaviour of FRP bars to concrete is expected to vary from that of conventional
steel bars due to their lower modulus of elasticity, lower shear strength and stiffness in the longitudinal
and transverse direction and the high normal strains expected before failure. However, despite the fact
that a lower maximum bond strength is expected from FRPs, the more ductile nature of the bonding
mechanism can lead to a better distribution of the bond stresses and, hence, lead to reduced
anchorage lengths.
The chapter on bond of fib Bulletin 40 initially elaborates on the constitutive modelling of bond at
three levels (i.e. micro, meso and macro) and subsequently presents the equations proposed by
existing design guidelines for the calculation of the basic development length. It is noted that there is
still a lot of debate amongst researchers as to the accuracy of these approaches. fib Bulletin 40 has
not proposed any recommendations on this aspect of design.

3 DESIGN PHILOSOPHY
Conventional RC codes of practice assume that the predominant failure mode is always ductile
due to yielding of the flexural reinforcement. However, this is not the case for FRP RC design
guidelines, which assume that brittle flexural failure would be attained due to either concrete crushing
or rupture of the FRP reinforcement. In addition, existing codes of practice have fundamental
structural safety uncertainties, which in conjunction with the change in the type of failure and other
design issues relevant to FRP RC, have major implications for the structural design and safety of FRP
RC elements [13].
Work by Neocleous et al. [13] revealed that the application of the current partial safety approach
(limit-state design) does not lead to uniform safety levels and results in RC elements with larger
amounts of reinforcement or larger dead to live load ratios being safer. In addition, the resistancecapacity margins between the flexural mode of failure and the other modes of failure are quite variable
and the designer has no reliable means of assessing them. Hence, if there is flexural over-strength,
codes of practice do not provide information about the failure mode that will actually occur first and at
which load level.
Regarding the issues relevant to FPR RC, it was shown that concrete crushing is the most
probable type of flexural failure, as the ultimate tensile strength of FRP is rarely attained in normal
concrete sections. Furthermore, the use of partial safety factor for longitudinal reinforcement (FRP-L)
may not be essential for the design of FRP RC, as long as the flexural failure intended at design is due
to concrete crushing.
Another issue arises from the assumption that the application of FRP-L will always lead to the
desired type of flexural failure. This is not always valid, especially for the large values of FRP-L, which
are normally expected to lead to flexural failure due to FRP rupture. However, it was highlighted that
application of high safety factors would actually lead to concrete crushing and will not necessarily
improve the safety of elements.
Additional issues that require further investigation arise when considering the long-term behaviour
of FRP RC elements. The application of multiple strength-reduction factors, intended to account for
the long-term effects of FRP reinforcement, may not lead to the mode of failure aimed at the shortterm design and may even lead to uneconomical designs. It is therefore essential to develop

FRPRCS-9 Sydney, Australia

Monday 13 Wednesday 15 July 2009

appropriate design provisions that take into account the long-term behaviour of FRP reinforcement.
One possible solution is to use the short-term properties for the limit state design and, subsequently,
to verify that (at various time intervals), the applied stress is less than the FRP strength that is
available at each time interval.
In view of the above findings, a new design and safety philosophy was developed for FRP RC,
presented in fib Bulletin 40. The basis of design is still limit-state design, but with the main aims being
the attainment of a predefined failure-mode-hierarchy and the satisfaction of target safety levels. The
proposed philosophy can be implemented through a framework that enables the determination of
appropriate safety factors and forms part of an overall code development process [13]. This approach
was adopted since it would enable new materials to be used as they are developed without the need
for re-writing the design guide each time. Hence, as a result, the engineer or code committee selects
whether concrete crushing, bond failure or shear failure is to be the predominant mode of failure for
design purposes, but also allows the second failure mode to be determined. This approach will always
ensure the correct safety level in a structure without undue conservatism in the second failure mode.

4 CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions are drawn:
Although FRP materials have fundamentally different mechanical characteristics than steel,
the design of FRP RC elements can be based on the same fundamental principles as far as
flexural design, shear design, cracking and deflections are concerned.
However, a different philosophy of design is needed which addresses the issue of safety at a
more fundamental level.

REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]

Japan Society of Civil Engineers, Application of Continuous Fiber Reinforcing Materials to

Concrete Structures, Concrete Library, No. 72, 1992, published in Japanese.
Japan Society of Civil Engineers, State-of-the-Art Report on Continuous Fiber Reinforcing
Materials, JSCE, Tokyo, Concrete Engineering Series 3, 1993.
Japan Society of Civil Engineers, Recommendation for Design and Construction of Concrete
Structures using Continuous Fiber Reinforcing Materials, JSCE, Tokyo, Concrete Engineering
Series 23, 1997, pp 1-325.
Clarke J.L., O'Regan D.P. and Thirugnanenedran C., EUROCRETE Project, Modification of
Design Rules to Incorporate Non-Ferrous Reinforcement, EUROCRETE Project, Sir William
Halcrow & Partners London, 1996.
Canadian Standards Association, Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code, Section 16: Fibre
Reinforced Structures, CSA, Canada, 1996, 1-25pp.
ACI Committee 440, Provisional Design Recommendations for Concrete Reinforced with FRP
Bars, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan, 1998, ACI 440-98.
European Union TMR Research Network. ConFibreCrete, Network Contract N
ERBFMRXCT970135.
fib Task-group 9.3, Externally Bonded FRP Reinforcement for RC Structures. International
Federation for Structural Concrete, fib Bulletin 14, 2001, pp 1-138.
European Union Marie Curie Research Training Network, European Network for Composite
Reinforcement,
MRTN-CT-2004-512397
(EN-CORE),
2004-08.
Website:
http://encore.shef.ac.uk/index.htm.
fib Task-group 9.3, FRP Reinforcement in RC Structures. International Federation for
Structural Concrete, fib Bulletin 40, 2007, pp 1-147.
CEN, Eurocode 2 - Design of concrete structures - Part 1-1: General rules and rules for
buildings, European Committee for Standardisation, Brussels, 2004, BS EN 1992-1-1.
Guadagnini, M., Pilakoutas, K. and Waldron, P., Shear Performance of FRP Reinforced
Concrete Beams, Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites, 22,15, 2003, pp 1389-1408.
Neocleous, K., Pilakoutas, K. and Guadagnini, M., Failure-Mode-Hierarchy Based Design for
Reinforced Concrete Structures, Structural Concrete, Thomas Telford, 6, 1, 2005, pp 23-32.