149
Design code development for
fibre-reinforced polymer
structures and repairs
Atsuhiko Machida1 and Kyuichi Maruyama2
1
Saitama University, Japan
2
Nagaoka University of Technology, Japan
Summary
This paper presents the issues and solutions in
developing design codes and standards for the use
of fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP)-reinforced
concrete structures. First, the codes for
new construction, referring mainly to the
Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE)
Recommendations for Design and Construction
of Concrete Structures using CFRM (Continuous
Fibre Reinforcing Materials), the Canadian
Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC), and the
American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee
440 recommendations are outlined. Methods
discussed are: structural analysis; determination
of design values; examination of flexural and
Key words: continuous fibre reinforcing materials; concrete structures; design code; FRP; strengthening; structural
analysis; test methods for FRP
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2002; 4:149–160 (DOI: 10.1002/pse.114)
1 Introduction
Recently, a great deal of attention has been focused on
research and development of advanced polymer
composites for application in construction and
rehabilitation of concrete structures. Several kinds of
fibres, such as carbon, aramid, glass, and polyvinyl
alcohol fibres are currently being used as alternatives
to steel in reinforced concrete structures. Despite their
low specific gravity compared with steel, they possess
high tensile strength, they are non-corrosive,
non-magnetic, and many of them provide excellent
resistance to other forms of weather and
chemical attack. Moreover, strengthening with
adhesive-bonded fibre reinforced polymers (FRP) has
been established as an effective method, applicable to
many types of concrete structures, such as columns,
beams, slabs and walls. Owing to their advantages,
FRP composites are increasingly being used all over
the world for strengthening of existing structures and
repair of damage.
Published online 7 August 2002
Copyright & 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
shear capacity; precautions to ensure ductility or
deformability; and calculations of deformation
and development length. Similarly, design codes
developed for strengthening of concrete
structures with FRP, namely the
recommendations by the JSCE, ACI Committee
440, and the fib code are compared and discussed
with respect to the ways in which FRP may
contribute to improvement of the performance of
structures in flexure, shear and ductility. Test
methods for different material properties of FRP
and the bond of FRP to concrete are also
presented, with reference to the JSCE
recommendations.
The mechanical properties of FRP materials are
significantly different from those of ordinary steel
reinforcement. The major difference between FRP and
steel is FRP’s linear elastic behaviour until failure, and
its lack of ductility. Because of these characteristics,
failure of FRP-reinforced structures can be brittle and
sudden; this needs to be taken seriously for designing
FRP reinforced concrete structures. The major issues
that are to be considered in the development of design
codes are related to the characteristics of FRP, such as
its low failure strain, low modulus of elasticity,
bonding strength, strength under long-term loading,
thermal properties, and combinations of these
characteristics. Furthermore, application of FRP for
strengthening also needs some special considerations,
such as the tensile strength of FRP and the bond of
FRP to concrete.
The design codes for concrete structures with FRP
rods and tendons were first developed in Japan[1,2]
(JSCE Recommendations), followed by Canada[3]
(CHBDC), and the United States[4] (ACI 440). All of
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2002; 4:149–160
150
these design codes were developed by modifying the
design codes for concrete structures with
conventional steel reinforcements in use in each
country by taking into account the characteristics of
FRP. Similarly, for strengthening of concrete structures
with FRP, design codes have been developed in Japan
(JSCE Recommendations)[2,5], in the USA (ACI 440)[6]
and in Europe (fib code)[7].
This paper presents the issues that are to be
considered in developing design codes for concrete
structures reinforced with FRP materials, mainly with
reference to the JSCE Recommendations[1,2], the
CHBDC[3], and the ACI 440[4]. Similarly, design codes
developed for strengthening of concrete structures
with FRP, namely the JSCE Recommendations[2,5], the
ACI 440[6], and the fib code[7] are compared and
discussed, with respect to ways of evaluating the FRP
contribution to the improved behaviour of structures in
flexure, shear and ductility. Further, test methods for
different material properties of FRP and the bond of
FRP to concrete are presented referring to the JSCE[2,5].
2 Design specifications for concrete
structures with FRP rods
2.1 ISSUES RELATED TO BRITTLENESS
Owing to the brittle nature of FRP, several
modifications must be made in the design method for
concrete structures with FRP. Structural analysis,
determination of design values of FRP, and
assessment of flexural capacity are some examples to
be discussed.
2.1.1 Structural analysis
For concrete members reinforced with FRP, hardly
any plastic deformation should be expected, because
of the brittleness of both the FRP and concrete, except
when special measures are provided. Therefore, the
elastic theory can be used successfully to calculate
section forces, but it is clear that redistribution of
bending moments due to plastic deformation should
not be taken into account. On this point, the JSCE
Recommendations[2] and the ACI 440[6] prescribe that
redistribution of moment caused by the plastic
deformation is not to be considered in the
computation. On the other hand, the CHBDC does not
mention this point at all. This is because the CHBDC
specifies the amount of FRP to restrict the
deformation of structures within a reasonable range,
as discussed later, and the amount is such that no
redistribution of moment is allowed, even for
ordinary steel reinforcement. As for moment
redistribution, therefore, these points should be borne
in mind in the structural analysis phase.
2.1.2 Design values of FRP
The same principle used in the usual design codes for
steel reinforcement can be applied to determine the
Copyright & 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
NEW MATERIALS IN CONSTRUCTION
design strength of FRP, as given by eq. (1).
fd ¼ fk =gm (1)
where fd ¼design strength, fk ¼characteristic strength
and gm is a material factor.
The JSCE Recommendations specify the use of a
guaranteed tensile strength as the characteristic
tensile strength, which is the mean value minus three
times the standard deviation. The ACI 440 also
recommends this principle. If this characteristic
strength is combined with the material factor
gm ¼ 1:15, the value recommended in the JSCE
Recommendations, the probability of breakage of FRP
can be less than 10
6. This means that, in the JSCE
Recommendations, the brittle nature of FRP is taken
into account in determining the material factor.
Contrary to this, the CHBDC specifies the fifth
percentile strength as the characteristic strength,
based on test results carried out following a specified
test method and provided by manufacturers.
The strength reduction factor of 0.85 for carbon
fibre-reinforced plastic tendons and 0.70 for aramid
fibre-reinforced plastic tendons are prescribed by the
CHBDC. Considering the variability of FRP strength,
this prescription seems to be a little unsafe compared
with the JSCE Recommendations. However, to ensure
sufficient safety, the CHBDC specifies precautions
against breakage of FRP everywhere. This extra
precaution is another way to account for the
brittleness of FRP materials, and it will be discussed
in more detail later.
When tendons are placed in a curved shape,
strength reduction occurs at the bent portions, owing
to brittle nature of FRP. The JSCE Recommendations
for curved tendons specify that the strength should be
equal to the design strength minus the elastic flexural
stress. This approach was derived from consideration
of the elastic nature of FRP. Conversely, the CHBDC
specifies that the strength it to be reduced by 0.5
multiplied by the product of modulus of elasticity and
the diameter of the strands and divided by the radius
of curvature of the tendon. The CHBDC specification
is based on experimental results[8]. The ACI 440 is
silent on this point. As for the portion formed into the
bent shape, the JSCE Recommendations gives eq. (2)
for the design strength of a bent shape.

r f
ffbd ¼ 0:05 þ 0:3
fuk
(2)
h 1:3
where ffbd ¼the design strength at the portion formed
into the bent shape, r ¼inner radius of curvature,
h ¼diameter of the FRP bar, and ffuk ¼characteristic
tensile strength of the FRP. The same equation is
adopted in the CHBDC and the ACI 440.
Fig. 1 shows the comparison between tested and
calculated values for the portion formed in bends of
different FRP bars. It is understood from the figure
that the equation gives a lower bound for the strength.
Besides the limit on design strength, a limit strain
should also be added to the design values of FRP. This
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2002; 4:149–160

1.2
r (regression
ffbk = 0.09 + 0.3 ffuk
h Eq.)
1.0
Eq. (2)
0.8
ffbk / ffuk
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 5 10 15
r/h
Fig. 1 Strength at the portion formed in bent shape.
is because the brittle nature of FRP may lower the
safety of a concrete member, owing to sudden failure
of the FRP. The characteristic and design values of
limit strain are determined following the same
method as limit strength.
2.1.3 Flexural capacity
Extensive experimental data show that the flexural
capacity of members reinforced or prestressed with
FRP can be calculated, based on the same
assumptions as for members with steel
reinforcements or prestressing tendons. However,
there is one major point to consider if the flexural
tension failure of member is expected. In an
FRP-reinforced concrete member, the FRP rupture will
occur when the outermost main reinforcement has
reached the failure strain, even if strains in the inner
reinforcements are below the failure strain (Fig. 2).
Similarly, when unbonded tendons or non-prestressed
reinforcements have been arranged in the same
section, the capacity of the member will be governed
by the breakage of the reinforcement attaining the
highest strain. Therefore, the principle of
superposition is not valid in this case. Consequently,
the ultimate load should be calculated on the basis of
the stress distribution when the strain in any FRP

< Failure strain

= Failure strain
Fig. 2 Flexural tensile ultimate state (multi-layered main rein-
forcements).
Copyright & 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
FRP DESIGN CODES 151
reinforcement layer reaches the design value of the
failure strain.
2.1.4 Ductility or deformability
All failure modes of concrete members with FRP as
their main reinforcement are brittle, unless some
special measures are provided. Ductility of structures
Carbon fiber with FRP reinforcement is much less than that of
Aramid fiber structures with steel reinforcement. How to treat this
Glass fiber problem is one of the most important points in the
Vinylon fiber design of concrete members with FRP reinforcement.
20 25 30
The solution proposed by the JSCE
Recommendations is to take a larger material factor
for FRP than for steel reinforcement and, if necessary,
to provide special measures to achieve better ductility,
such as confinement of concrete at compression zones
or arrangement of additional steel reinforcements.
A larger material factor can cover the case of failure
due to overloading. However, it can hardly cover
unexpected larger sectional forces due to, for example,
unequal settlement of supports in statically
indeterminate structures. Special measures will be
needed to provide for such unexpected larger
sectional forces. The JSCE Recommendations present
member factors for CFRM and steel for different
sectional forces, as shown in Table 1.
In the CHBDC, the problem of ductility is treated in
several ways. The first approach is to provide the FRP
reinforcement area such that the factored moment of
resistance Mr is developed with the ratio c=d being
between 0.25 and 0.50, where c is the distance from
the extreme compression fibre to the neutral axis, and
d is the effective depth. The lower-bound value of c=d
means that the minimum cross-sectional area of FRP
reinforcement is much higher than for concrete
members with steel reinforcement. The second
approach is such that the overall performance factor,
J ¼ Mult fult =Mc fc is at least 4.0 for rectangular
sections and 6.0 for T-sections, where Mult is the
ultimate moment capacity of the section, Mc is the
moment corresponding to a maximum compressive
concrete strain in the section of 0.001, fult is the
curvature at Mult , and fc is the curvature at Mc . The
factor J is the ratio of energy absorbed by the beam at

′<
′cu
the ultimate limit state to that absorbed at the
proportional limit of the concrete at the extreme
compression fibre. The requirement for J is based on
the fact that steel-reinforced concrete beams designed
by the conventional criteria have nearly the same
Table 1 Member factor
Reinforcing Member factor c b
material ...................................................
Bending moment Shear and
and axial force torsion
.........................................................................
CFRM 1.15–1.3 1.3–1.5
Steel 1.15 1.3–1.15
.........................................................................
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2002; 4:149–160
152 NEW MATERIALS IN CONSTRUCTION

minimum values. The third approach is to provide

nonprestressed tendons capable of carrying the dead
6.0
load of the concrete member.
The ACI 440 specifies two precautions against
brittle failure. The first is to reduce the capacity

Observed (N/mm 2)
reduction factor to 0.7, which is analogous to the
member factor 1.3 in the JSCE Recommendations. The 4.0
second is to promote flexural compression failure by
making the reinforcement ratio equal to or greater
than 1.33 times the balanced ratio.
2.0

2.2 ISSUES RELATED TO LOW MODULUS

OF ELASTICITY
2.2.1 Flexural crack width
0
The JSCE Recommendations prescribe that, when the 0 2.0 4.0 6.0
appearance of the structure is important, surface Calculated (N / mm 2)
cracks are to be within the permissible widths
considered acceptable for appearance. It also Fig. 3 Comparison between bond strength tested and calculated.
prescribes that the permissible crack width for
appearance may generally be set as 0.5 mm by
considering the setting of the structure. The CHBDC 2.0
and the ACI 440 adopt the same principle, but they Steel
Niwa + Ishibashi
allow 0.7 mm for inner surfaces. FRP
1.5
Vc , exp./Vc , cal.

2.2.2 Displacement and deformation

Due to low modulus of elasticity, the deformations of 1.0
concrete members with FRP reinforcement after the
initiation of cracks are greater than those with steel
reinforcement. Even for concrete structures with FRP, 0.5
it has been proved that Branson’s equation gives
satisfactory result in predicting deformations. This is
0
because, in Branson’s equation, the effect of low 1 2 3 4
modulus of elasticity of FRP is automatically reflected a /d
in the calculation of the effective moment of inertia. To
Fig. 4 Shear capacity when FRP used as main reinforcement.
calculate deformations, the JSCE Recommendations
prescribe use of Branson’s equation as for
steel-reinforced concrete structures. The ACI 440
specifies a modified Branson’s equation, taking into
above is done. The equations specified in the JSCE
account the effect of modulus of elasticity on the
Recommendations, the CHBDC and the ACI 440 s are
moment of inertia of the cracked section. The
analogous; i.e. these are the modified equations from
restriction on c=d in the CHBDC, as described in
the equation in Orangun et al.[9].
Section 2.1.4, is also effective in avoiding the adverse
effects of large deformations on member behaviour.

2.3 SHEAR CAPACITY

2.2.3 Development length
Low modulus of elasticity, combined with bond
characteristics of FRP with concrete, affects the
required development length. Fig. 3 shows a
comparison of tested versus calculated bond
strengths. The test results are for FRP having similar
bond characteristics to those of ordinary steel
deformed bars. The equation used in the calculation
was derived from the equation given by Orangun
et al.[9] and was modified by using the area of
transverse reinforcement multiplied by the ratio of the
modulus of elasticity of FRP to that of steel
reinforcement. Good agreement between the tested
and calculated values, shown in Fig. 3, indicates that
the equation for conventional steel reinforcement can
still be applied to FRP, if the modification described
Past experiments have proved that concrete members
with FRP as main reinforcement and/or shear
reinforcement have considerably lower shear capacity
than members with ordinary steel reinforcement
(Figs. 4 and 5). The reduction of shear capacity in
members with FRP as their main reinforcement is
probably due to the low modulus of elasticity of FRP.
For this reason, the equations to calculate the shear
capacity of the FRP-reinforced member must be
modified to take into account this effect. The specific
methods for modification depend on the equations
developed for members with ordinary steel
reinforcement. For example, the equations in the
CHBDC do not need any modification, because they
include the effect on shear capacity of the modulus of

Copyright & 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2002; 4:149–160
 FRP DESIGN CODES 153

2.0
T suji2) for Vc 400 RC beams
PC beams

Calculated (kN)
1.5
300
P/P, cal.

1.0
200

0.5 100

0 1 2 3 4 0 100 200 300 400

Vs /Vc Observed (kN)

Fig. 5 Shear capacity when FRP used as stirrups. Fig. 6 Comparison of shear capacity (eqn for design).

elasticity of the reinforcement. On the other hand, 400 RC beams

equations in the JSCE Standard Specification[10] and PC beams

Calculated (kN)
the ACI Building Code[11] need some modifications to 300
incorporate the behaviour of FRP reinforcements.
The JSCE Standard Specification[10] and the ACI
200
Building Code[11] specify the use of eq. (3) to calculate
the shear capacity of reinforced concrete linear
members V with steel reinforcement. 100

V ¼ Vc þ Vs (3)

where Vc ¼ the design shear capacity of members
without shear reinforcement and Vs ¼ the design
shear capacity carried by shear reinforcing steel.
To account for the strength reduction due to low
modulus of elasticity of FRP, the JSCE proposes to
multiply Vc in eq. (3) by ðEf =Es Þ1=3. Similarly, ACI
Building Code proposes a multiplier of Ef =Ec . In both
cases, Ef ¼ modulus of elasticity of FRP, Es ¼ modulus
of elasticity of steel and Ec ¼ modulus of elasticity of
concrete.
The difference in evaluating the effect of modulus
of elasticity probably comes from the difference in
evaluating of the effect of the reinforcement ratio on
shear capacity. In concrete members with FRP as shear
reinforcement, failure due to breakage of shear
reinforcement may occur in addition to diagonal
tensile failure, shear compression failure and
compressive failure of web concrete. The JSCE
Recommendations point out that the ultimate shear
load due to the breakage of shear reinforcement in a
member with FRP as stirrups will be lower than
simply the one calculated with Vs , replacing the yield
strength of steel by the ultimate strain multiplied by
the modulus of elasticity of FRP. The causes are due to
the reduction in strength of a bent shape of shear
reinforcement and unevenness of the tensile force
carried by the shear reinforcement. That is, the strain
in FRP must be lower than an upper-bound strain that
can be achieved in the stirrups.
The JSCE Recommendations show the equation for
the upper-bound value, which was derived from the
results of a finite element (FEM) analysis. The shear
0 100 200 300 400
Observed (kN)
Fig. 7 Comparison of shear capacity (FEM).
capacity calculated by the equation in the JSCE
Recommendations gives the lower-bound value of the
experimental data, as shown in Fig. 6. A rather wide
scatter in the results shown in the figure indicates that
the equation is not completely accurate. Indeed, an
equation that gives more precise results can be
derived, based on the FEM analysis, as shown in
Fig. 7, but the equation is too complicated to be
specified for practical design.
The ACI 440 specifies a simpler equation to
calculate Vs . The equation is based on the truss
analogy and gives the upper-bound stress in the FRP
stirrups as the modulus of elasticity of the FRP
multiplied by 0.002. The CHBDC does not permit the
use of FRP as shear reinforcement, unless this use is
approved, because of insufficient experience among
Canadian researchers. When approval is given, the
shear capacity of the member is calculated by the
same kind of equation as prescribed by the JSCE
Recommendations.
2.4 ISSUES RELATED TO STRENGTH UNDER
LONG-TERM LOADING
The stress intensities of FRP in prestressed concrete
members under service load should be prescribed by
considering the effects of long-term loading, such as

Copyright & 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2002; 4:149–160
154
Table 2 Strength reduction factor for non-prestressed
reinforcement
R 0.5 1.0 52.0
.......................................................................
F for GFRP 1.0 0.8 0.7
F for CFRP 1.0 0.9 0.9
F for AFRP 1.0 0.6 0.5
.......................................................................
creep rupture. As the ratio of sustained tensile stress
to short-term strength of an FRP bar increases,
endurance time decreases. The creep rupture
endurance time can also irreversibly decrease under
sufficiently adverse environmental conditions,
such as exposure to high temperature, ultraviolet
radiation, high alkalinity, wet and dry cycles, and
freezing–thawing cycles.
The JSCE Recommendations prescribe 0.8 times the
characteristic value of creep rupture strength,
determined from creep rupture tests, but not larger
than 70% of the design strength. Tests are required
because creep rupture strengths vary greatly
depending on the kind of fibres in the FRP. Moreover,
at present, there are only limited data on creep
rupture strengths.
In the CHBDC, the stress limitations related to long-
term loading are not specified for FRP prestressing
bars or tendons. This is probably because of the
consideration that if permissible stress levels at
jacking are kept low, adverse effects of long-term
loading will be small. However, for non-prestressed
FRP reinforcement, the strength reduction factor F is
specified, as shown in Table 2. It is seen from the table
that the value of F increases with the increase in the
ratio of stresses due to dead loads to those due to live
loads. At the same time, the tensile stress intensities of
FRP at jacking and at transfer are also to be limited, to
below a value appropriately selected considering
safety against failure, namely reliability on strength.
For this, the JSCE Recommendations specify that, as a
rule, the allowable stress be determined based on
tests, and recommends 0:7fpuk at jacking and 0:6fpuk at
transfer in the case of carbon fibre prestressing
material. Conversely, the CHBDC gives Table 3 for
stress intensities at jacking and at transfer. It looks as
if there are some differences between the JSCE
Recommendations and the CHBDC, but the
differences are small, because fpuk in the JSCE
Recommendations and fpu in the CHBDC are based on
guaranteed strengths and 5th percentile strengths,
respectively
Table 3 Limiting values of stress intensity
Tendon At jacking
..........................................................................................................................
Pre-tensioning Post-tensioning
......................................................................................................................................................
AFRP 0.40 fpu 0.40 fpu
CFRP 0.65 fpu 0.65 fpu
GFRP not applicable 0.55 fpu
......................................................................................................................................................
Copyright & 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
NEW MATERIALS IN CONSTRUCTION
3 Design specifications for concrete
structures strengthened with FRP
laminates
3.1 GENERAL
The objectives in applying FRP laminates to
reinforced concrete members are to improve the
latter’s capacity in flexure, shear, and torsion, and
their ductility. Based on experimental and analytical
studies, design codes have been published in different
countries. In particular, the codes developed in
Japan[2,5], the USA[6] and Europe[7] are compared and
discussed here. Fibres targeted in these codes are
carbon fibre, aramid fibre and glass fibre. Basically,
the design philosophy in all these codes is identical,
i.e. the limit state design principle.
3.2 FLEXURAL STRENGTHENING
Analytical approaches to evaluate the contribution of
FRP laminates to concrete structures are more or less
similar in above-mentioned three codes. The
traditional plane sections analysis is adopted for
strain compatibility, and the stress–strain
relationships of concrete, steel and FRP laminates are
used for the equilibrium equations (Fig. 8). There are,
however, some differences in the three codes
concerning the safety factors and the necessary
considerations for the design.
3.2.1 JSCE code
As for safety factors, the JSCE Codes[2,5] adopt five
factors, namely a material factor gm, a member factor gb,
and a structure factor (or importance factor) gi , as well
as a load factor gf and an analysis factor ga. The
characteristic values are normally determined as the
values of the 5% fractile based on a normal distribution
of data. The flexural capacity of reinforced concrete
members with FRP laminates is calculated by a
traditional approach, as shown in Fig. 8. The Code
prescribes only the general assumptions for calculation
of the flexural capacity. The maximum design stress in
FRP laminates is limited by eq. (4), owing to peeling
failure starting at a cracked portion.
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2Gf Ef
sf 4 (4)
nf tf
where sf ¼ maximum design stress of FRP laminate
(MPa), Gf ¼ interfacial fracture energy (MPa), Ef ¼
modulus of elasticity of FRP laminate (MPa), nf ¼
number of plies of FRP laminate and tf ¼ thickness of
one ply of FRP laminate (mm).
At transfer
Pre-tensioning Post-tensioning
0.38 fpu 0.35 fpu
0.60 fpu 0.60 fpu
not applicable 0.48 fpu
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2002; 4:149–160
 FRP DESIGN CODES 155

b

c

x x

h d

As
s
fs

f
ff
Af Strain distribution Stress distribution

Fig. 8 Analysis of cross section for flexure.

For the serviceability limit state, crack width, Table 4 ACI Code environmental reduction factors in
deflection and durability are specified. The verification Exposure Fibre type Environmental
methods developed for steel-reinforced concrete reduction factor
structures are extended with proper considerations of CE
the effects of the FRP laminates. Crack widths after
........................................................................
Enclosed Carbon/epoxy 0.95
bonding of FRP laminates can be reduced by 30%–70% conditioned
of the values calculated the JSCE Code equation for space
reinforced concrete structures. In this code, a 30% Glass/epoxy 0.75
reduction of crack widths is recommended. The Aramid/epoxy 0.85
deflection of members with FRP laminates can be Unenclosed Carbon/epoxy 0.85
calculated by the same equation as for reinforced unconditioned
concrete structures when the flexural rigidity of pace
members is properly evaluated. When FRP laminates Glass/epoxy 0.65
cover the complete surface of concrete, intrusion of Aramid/epoxy 0.75
carbon dioxide, chloride ion and other substances can Hostile Carbon/epoxy 0.85
be prevented. There are not much data on this effect, environment
but the Code recommends 5–10 years of deterioration Glass/epoxy 0.50
offset with a single ply FRP laminate. Aramid/epoxy 0.70
........................................................................
3.2.2 ACI code
Three safety factors are introduced for the evaluation Table 5 Stress limit of FRP laminate for creep and fatigue
of flexural capacity of members with FRP laminates,
Carbon fibre Aramid fibre Glass fibre
namely an environmental reduction factor CE for ........................................................................
material strength (Table 4), a partial reduction factor 0.55 ffu 0.30 ffu 0.20 ffu
........................................................................
C ¼ 0:85 for efficiency of FRP laminate, and a strength
reduction factor f.
The strength reduction factor f represents the loss
of ductility due to FRP laminate, and is specified to be and steel reinforcement as follows. For FRP laminates:
0.9–0.7 as follows: 8
> 0:0050
e0 for concrete types C35=45
8 >
>
> 0:90 for es 4esy < or lower
>
> efu;c 5
< 0:20ðes
esy Þ >
>
> 0:0075
e0 for concrete types higher
f ¼ 0:70 þ for esy 4es 40:005 (5) :
>
> 0:005
esy than C35=45 (6)
>
:
0:70 for es 50:005 for steel:
8
For a sustained load and a cyclic load, the ACI > 0:0043
e0 for concrete types C35=45
>
>
specifies the stress limits for FRP laminates, as given < or lower
in Table 5. esu;c 5
>
> 0:0065
e0 for concrete types higher
>
:
than C35=45 (7)
3.2.3 Fib code
Central to the safety concept of the ultimate limit state In addition, the fib code mentions how to avoid a
is the guarantee of yielding of the internal steel peeling failure and an end shear failure. For the
reinforcement so that the FRP strengthened member serviceability limit state, it specifies how to verify the
fails in a ductile manner. To attain this, minimum requirements for deflection, crack width and interface
strain capabilities are introduced for FRP laminates bond cracking.

Copyright & 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2002; 4:149–160
156 NEW MATERIALS IN CONSTRUCTION

3.3 SHEAR STRENGTHENING reduction factor for the shear contribution, and the
The shear contribution of FRP laminates is evaluated other is a maximum strain of the FRP laminate. The
in the three codes by the truss analogy method, as contribution of the FRP laminate is given by eq. (11),
given in eq. (8). and the value of the partial reduction factor C is given
by eq. (12). The effective strain in the FRP laminate is
Vu ¼ Vc þ Vs þ Vf (8)
given by eq. (13):
where Vf is the contribution of FRP laminate to shear Vf ¼ Af efe Ef ðsin a þ cos aÞ df =sf (11)
capacity of member, and is expressed in the same (
manner as the contribution of steel shear 0:95 completely wrapped element
reinforcement. The key point lies in how much strain C¼
0:85 three-sided U-wraps or bonded face plies
the FRP laminate develops at the ultimate state. Since
analytical approaches are not yet fully developed, the (12)
(
effective strain of the FRP laminate should be 0:004 completely wrapped all four sides
determined from test results. The maximum strain at efe ¼
kefu 40:004 U-wraps or bonding to two sides
ultimate state is greatly influenced by the efficiency of
anchorage of the laminates. Also, the elasticity or (13)
rigidity of the FRP laminate may influence the load-
carrying mechanism in shear. 3.3.3 Fib code
The fib code specifies the maximum strain in FRP
3.3.1 JSCE code laminates for wrapped and unwrapped cases, and
The JSCE Code treats only the case of wrapped FRP recommends that FRP laminates should be attached to
laminates. The contribution of the FRP laminate is the compressive zone of RC members when full
expressed in terms of elastic modulus Ef and the wrapping is not possible.
amount of laminate rf . To compute the FRP Vfd ¼ 0:9efd;e Efu rf bw d ðcot y þ cot aÞsin a (14)
contribution to shear capacity, shear capacity
computed by the truss analogy is multiplied by an efd;e ¼ efk;e =gf ¼ 0:8ef;e =gf (15)
efficiency factor K, whose value is given by eq. (9). 8 !
> 2=3 0:30
0:44K ¼ 1:68
0:67R40:8 (9) >
> f cm
>
> 0:17 efu wrapped CFRP
>
> Efu rf
 2=3  1=3 >
>
ffud 1 >
> 2 ! 3
R ¼ ðrf Ef Þ1=4 0:54R42:0 (10) >
> 2=3 0:56
Ef 0
fcd >
> f
>
> 6 0:65
cm
10 7
3
>
< 6 Efu rf 7 side or
where rf ¼ Af =ðbw sf Þ, Ef ¼ modulus of elasticity of 6 7
ef;e ¼ min6 ! 7 U-shaped
FRP sheet, fud ¼ design strength of FRP sheet and fcd 0 >
> 6 2=3 0:30 7
>
> 4 fcm 5 CFRP fracture
¼ concrete strength. Eq. (9) is obtained from the >
> 0:17 e fu
>
> E r
regression analysis of test data, as shown in Fig. 9. >
>
fu f
>
> !0:47
>
> 2=3
>
> fcm
>
3.3.2 ACI code : 0:048 Efu r
> efu wrapped AFRP
f
The ACI Code treats the anchorage efficiency
(wrapped or unwrapped) in two ways. One is a (16)

1.2
Carbon
Aramid 1
1.0 Aramid 2
Equation
0.8
K

0.6

0.4
K = 1.68-0.67*R
0.2

0.0
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Rexp

Fig. 9 Relationship between K and R in JSCE code.

Copyright & 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2002; 4:149–160

2.0
CFRP εfk,e /εfu
1.5 AFRP εfk,e /εfu
CFRP εf,e /εfu
AFRP εf,e /εfu
εf,e /εfu
1.0
GFRP
0.5
0.0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06
Efuρf/fcm 2/3
Fig. 10 Nominal FRP strain limit in fib code.
where ef;e ¼ strain limit of FRP laminate, efu ¼
ultimate strain of FRP, Efu ¼ elastic modulus of FRP in
the principal fibre direction, rf ¼ FRP reinforcement
ratio, bw ¼ web width, d ¼ effective depth, y ¼ angle
of diagonal crack, a ¼ angle of principal fibre
orientation and fcm ¼ concrete strength.
The strain limit of FRP laminates is obtained from
regression analysis of the test data, as shown in
Fig. 10. The fib code extends the shear provisions to
torsional strengthening, taking a ¼ 908 only for the
case of full wrapping with FRP laminates.
3.4 DUCTILITY ENHANCEMENT
Wrapping with FRP laminates can not only improve
the shear resistance of existing reinforced concrete
members, but can also provide confinement to
concrete, resulting in an enhancement in deformation
capacity. The fib code describes the confinement effects
of concrete in terms of stress–strain relationships. The
JSCE Code indicates directly how to calculate the
improvement of deformation (or deflection) of
reinforced concrete members with FRP wrapping.
3.4.1 JSCE code
To evaluate the improvement of deformation capacity,
a ductility ratio m is introduced. The basic concept of
ductility improvement lies in the fact that the ratio of
the shear capacity to the flexural capacity dominates
the ductility of a member. The Code provides eq. (17),
which is obtained from the regression analysis of test
data, as shown in Fig. 11.
" should be controlled to 20  28C, when test specimens
1:16ð0:5Vc þ Vs Þ
mfd ¼
Vmu
  # controlled to within 100–500 MPa/min.
efu rf
 1 þ a0 þ 3:58 =gbf 410 (17)
Vmu =ðBzÞ
Copyright & 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
FRP DESIGN CODES 157
12
10
8
6
µ
y = 1.1641x + 3.5851
R2 = 0.7972
4
RC
Aramid
2 Aramid
Carbon
0
0 2 4 6 8
(0.5Vc + Vs)/Vmu·(1 + Es ·
fu · f /(Vmu /(B·z)))
0.08 Fig. 11 Ductility ratio in JSCE code.
where mfd ¼ ductility ratio (ratio of yield deformation
to ultimate deformation), Vc ¼ concrete shear
contribution, Vs ¼ steel reinforcement shear
contribution, Vmu ¼ shear force at the ultimate
flexural capacity, B ¼ member width, a0 ¼ coefficient
(the value of Young’s modulus of steel can be used),
efu ¼ ultimate strain of FRP, rf ¼ ratio of FRP
ð¼ Af =ðsf BÞÞ and gbf ¼ member factor.
4 Test methods
For reliable design of reinforced concrete structures
strengthened with FRP materials, the material
properties should be determined from approved test
methods. For FRP bars and tendons, the test methods
developed for steel reinforcement may be applicable.
However, there are many types and dimensions of
FRP bars available on the market, and their properties
vary greatly. Thus, additional considerations are
necessary for testing FRP bars and tendons. The same
applies to FRP laminates. The JSCE has specified ten
test methods for FRP bars and tendons, and nine for
FRP laminates, as listed in Table 6[2,5]. Some test
methods are discussed in this paper.
4.1 BARS AND TENDONS
4.1.1 Test for tensile properties
The length of the test portion of the specimen is at
least 100 mm, and not less than 40 times the nominal
diameter of FRP bar or tendon. The anchoring portion
of the test specimen should be properly prepared.
Otherwise, the anchored edge will fail easily. Ambient
temperature of 5–358C may be acceptable, but it
are sensitive to temperature. The loading rate will
influence the tensile strength, and should be
From the test results, tensile rigidity and Young’s
modulus are calculated from the load deformation or
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2002; 4:149–160
158
Table 6 JSCE test methods for FRP materials
Bars and tendons Laminates
........................................................................
Tensile properties Tensile properties
Flexural tensile properties Overlap splice
Creep failure Bond to concrete
Long-term relaxation Bond to steel plate
Tensile fatigue strength Pull-out strength
Coefficient of thermal Tensile fatigue strength
expansion
Anchorage and couplers Accelerated artificial exposure
for prestressing tendons
Alkali resistance Freeze and thaw resistance
Bond strength Water, acid and alkali resistance
Shear properties
........................................................................
the stress curves to within 20–60% of the guaranteed
tensile capacity. Ultimate tensile strain may be
sometimes difficult to measure during the test, and
can be determined from the tensile capacity and the
Young’s modulus.
4.1.2 Test for creep failure
The aim of this test is to extrapolate the creep failure
capacity ratio at 106 h from the approximate line
plotted by test results for up to 1000 h. Test specimens
and test conditions should be identical to those
specified in the test method for tensile properties. The
number of specimens at a particular load level should
not be less than three, and the load levels should be
not less than five. One load level must be such that
three specimens do not fail after 1000 h loading.
4.1.3 Test for tensile fatigue strength
Test specimens and conditions are identical to those for
the test for tensile properties, and at least three
specimens should be tested for each load level. At least
three load levels should be selected. Loads may be set
in two ways, either by fixing the average load and
varying the load amplitude, or by fixing the minimum
repeated load by partial pulsation and varying the
maximum repeated load. In either case, at least three
load levels should be set within the range of 103–2  106
cycles to failure. The frequency of load application
should be normally within the range of 1–10 Hz.
4.1.4 Test for alkali resistance
Test specimens and the conditions, except alkali
immersion, are identical to those for the test for tensile
properties. The alkali solution should be of same
composition as in the pore solution of concrete. It may
be at around pH 13, e.g. Ca(OH)2=2 gm/l,
NaOH=10 gm/l, KOH=14 gm/l. Test specimens
Table 7 Dimensions of test specimens for bond strength
Nominal Size of concrete
diameter (mm) block (mm)
........................................................................................................................................................
517 100  100  100
17–30 150  150  150
........................................................................................................................................................
Copyright & 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
NEW MATERIALS IN CONSTRUCTION
Spiral reinforcement
FRP rod
100
D
4D
100
100
(Dimensions in mm)
Fig. 12 Test specimen for bond strength.
should be stored in the solution at 60  28C for one
month. The alkali resistance of the FRP material is
evaluated by both mass change and tensile capacity
retention rate.
4.1.5 Test for bond strength
Fig. 12 shows the configuration of the test specimen,
and its dimensions are given in Table 7. In this test
method, the bonded length is specified as four times
the diameter of the FRP bars. The FRP bar should
protrude by around 10 mm at the free end, and the
end face is structured so as to permit access for a dial
gauge used to measure the amount of pull-out. Spiral
hoops, 6 mm diameter and 40 mm pitch, should
reinforce the concrete block. Concrete strength at 28
days should be approximately 30 MPa. The loading
rate is 10–20 MPa/min. During the test, slippage of
the free end and the applied load should be measured
until either the FRP is pulled out or the load decreases
significantly due to splitting or cracking of the
concrete.
4.2 LAMINATES
Although nine test methods are specified in by the
JSCE Specifications, two test methods for tensile
properties and the bond properties are outlined in this
section.
4.2.1 Test for tensile properties
The configuration of the test specimen is shown in
Fig. 13, and the dimensions are listed in Table 8. The
specimen has tags prevent anchorage failure. Since
the specimen has impregnated resin, it takes a few
days to cure. Before testing, the specimen should be
conditioned for at least 48 h in a room maintained at
temperature 23  28C and relative humidity 50  10%.
During testing, the loading rate should be controlled
constantly as 1–3%/min, and the ambient
temperature should be kept between 5 and 35oC.
Bonded length External diameter of spiral
hoop (mm)
4  nominal diameter 80–100
4  nominal diameter 120–150
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2002; 4:149–160

A
D
B
E E
G G
C F
Fig. 13 Test specimen for tensile properties.
Table 8 Specimen dimensions for FRP laminates, as shown in
Fig. 13
A B C D E F G strain distribution, the local bond stress as a function
........................................................................
5200 12.5  0.5 42.5 5100 535 1–2 550
........................................................................
Applied load and strain of FRP laminate are
measured at suitable intervals. Young’s modulus and
the ultimate strain of the FRP laminate should be
calculated in the same manner as in the test for FRP
bars. The test for the overlap splice strength is almost
the same as that for tensile properties. The only
difference is the existence of an overlap portion in the
middle of the specimen. The test for tensile fatigue
strength of FRP laminate can be conducted in the
same manner as that for FRP bars.
4.2.2 Test for bond properties
The configuration of the test specimen is shown in
Fig. 14. Two concrete blocks (100  100  300 mm) are
aligned to match the centre of the cross-section. After
aligning the blocks, two FRP sheets (>50 mm
width  400 mm length) are attached on the opposite
sides. To obtain consistent data, FRP laminates at one
end should be sufficiently anchored. The left sides of
the laminates are tested and strains are measured.
Concrete strengths are about 30 MPa at 28 days. Steel
bars should be of suitable diameter and yield strength
to transfer the load to the FRP laminates. Concrete
surface treatment should ensure the bond strength.
The specimen should be conditioned in the same
manner as the specimen for tensile properties. The
load is applied by pulling the steel bar at both ends at
Direction of fiber
CF sheet Bonding length
Fig. 14 Test specimen for bond properties.
Copyright & 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
FRP DESIGN CODES 159
a loading rate of 2–5 kN/min. Strain gauges should be
attached on both surfaces of laminates. From the
of relative displacement can be calculated.
5 Concluding remarks
Issues encountered in developing design codes for
concrete structures with FRP have been outlined and
possible solutions discussed with reference to the
JSCE Recommendations, the CHBDC and the ACI
440. There exist several material and design issues
particular to FRP that require modifications to the
design codes developed for concrete structures
reinforced with steel. However, because provisions in
design codes are usually inter-related, modification of
one provision for a particular FRP characteristic may
require modification of other provisions. Thus, the
possible solutions for the FRP issues mentioned here
are complex, and cannot be easily summarized.
Two opposing concepts may be possible in
developing design codes for FRP-reinforced concrete
structures. The first is that the performance of a
structure is irrelevant, provided that some level of
safety is secured. The other is that the performance of
a structure should not differ significantly from that of
a steel-reinforced structure, even though the
properties of FRP are different from those of ordinary
steel. A typical example is the treatment of ductility or
deformability in the JSCE Recommendations and the
CHBDC. The JSCE Recommendations follow the
former concept, while the CHBDC follows the latter.
Vinyl tape
Steel Bar
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2002; 4:149–160
160
For concrete structures strengthened with FRP, the
traditional approach is to add the extra reinforcement in
the form of bonded laminates to enhance capacity both
in flexure and shear. All three codes, JSCE, ACI and fib,
use the same concept, but differ in their exact
expressions for calculating the respective strengths.
Basically, all three codes adopt the limit states design
philosophy. The long-term properties of FRP and the
bond of FRP to concrete are the most important factors
for durability of strengthened systems, and more
studies should be directed towards these aspects.
References and recommended reading
[1] Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE). Recommendations for Design
and Construction of Concrete Structures using CFRM. 1996.
[2] Japan Society of Civil Engineers. Recommendations for design and
construction of concrete structures using continuous fibre reinforcing materials.
Concrete Engineering Series 1997: 23.
[3] Canadian Standards International. CAN/CSA-S6-00. Section 16 - Fibre-
reinforced Structures. Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code, Rexdale, Ontario: CSI.
2001. 689–705.
Atsuhiko Machida
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Saitama University, Saitam 338 - 8570, Japan
E-mail: Machida@p.mtr.civil.saitama-u.ac.jp
Kyuichi Maruyama
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Nagaoka University of Technology, Nagaoka-shi,
Niigata 940 -2188, Japan
Copyright & 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
NEW MATERIALS IN CONSTRUCTION
[4] American Concrete Institute. ACI 440 1R-01. Guide for the Design and
Construction of Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars. Farmington Hills, Michigan: ACI.
2001.
[5] Japan Society of Civil Engineers. Recommendations for upgrading of
concrete structures with use of continuous fibre sheet. Concrete Engineering Series
2001: 41.
[6] American Concrete Institute Committee 440. Guide for the Design
and Construction of Externally Bonded FRP Systems for Strengthening Concrete Structures.
Farmington Hills, Michigan: ACI. 2000.
[7] International Federation for Structural Concrete (fib).
Externally bonded FRP reinforcement for RC structures. Technical Report, Bulletin
14. 2001.
[8] Faoro M. Development and conversion of the properties of ACM into
prestressing tendons for bridges and structures. Proceedings of the 1st International
Conference on Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges and Structures, Sherbrooke,
Canada, 1992: 415–424.
[9] Orangun CO, Jirsa JO & Breen JE. A reevaluation of test data on
development length and splices. Journal of the American Concrete Institute 1997: 3:
114–122.
[10] Japan Society of Civil Engineers Concrete Committee. Standard
Specification for Design and Construction of Concrete Structures (Part 1: Design). 1996. (in
Japanese).
[11] American Concrete Institute Committee 318. Building Code
Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-95); Commentary (ACI 318R-95). Detroit:
ACI. 1995.
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2002; 4:149–160