Shear capacity of concrete
slabs reinforced with
glass-fiber-reinforced polymer
bars using the modified
compression field theory
Ruifen Liu and Chris P. Pantelides
■  This paper reports an experimental investigation of the flexural
and shear performance of concrete structures reinforced with
glass-fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP).
■  Simply supported slabs of both normalweight and lightweight
concretes with compressive strengths in excess of 8000 psi
(55 MPa) were tested.
■  Modified compression field theory first- and second-order
equations can provide accurate yet conservative predictions of
the behavior of GFRP-reinforced concrete despite the differ-
ences in mechanical properties between GFRP and steel.
■  The predictions are less conservative for lightweight than for
normalweight concrete.
C
orrosion of steel in reinforced concrete structures
is one of the main factors limiting the service life
of bridge decks and parking structures. Chlorides
from deicing salts or a marine environment act as catalysts
for the corrosion of steel in concrete. Corrosion mitigation
requires expensive maintenance, repair, or replacement.
The use of glass-fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars as
internal reinforcement is a possible solution to corrosion
of steel bars. In addition to their noncorrosive properties,
GFRP bars have higher strength than steel bars and are
light and easy to handle, which makes them attractive as
reinforcement for certain concrete elements, such as slabs.
However, GFRP bars have different mechanical properties
from steel; GFRP bars behave in a linear elastic manner
until rupture, which makes concrete members reinforced
with GFRP bars vulnerable to brittle failure.
Considerable research has been undertaken to investigate
both flexural and shear performance of GFRP-reinforced
concrete structures. Despite the differences in material
properties compared with steel bars, the prediction of
flexural capacity using the strain compatibility approach is
still effective. The behavior of lightweight concrete slabs
reinforced with GFRP bars without shear reinforcement
is a topic of active research. Prediction of shear capac-
PCI Journal | S u m m e r 2012 83
 ity is essential in the design of GFRP reinforced concrete
members, as Guide for the Design and Construction of
Structural Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars (ACI
440.1R-06)1 recommends that such members be designed
as overreinforced, making them vulnerable to shear failure.
There is little research available on GFRP-reinforced slabs
constructed with high-strength normalweight or light-
weight concrete.
The modified compression field theory (MCFT) is an
analytical model with 15 equations that produce accurate
estimates of shear strength for steel-reinforced concrete
members.2 Bentz and Collins3 reduced the MCFT equations
to two, which still accurately estimate the shear strength of
steel-reinforced concrete members.4 Hoult et al.5 found that
crack widths are affected by both a size effect and a strain
effect regardless of the type of reinforcement used; they
also showed that the two MCFT equations proposed by
Bentz and Collins work equally well in predicting the shear
capacity of normalweight concrete slabs reinforced with
steel or FRP reinforcement.
Sherwood et al.6 demonstrated that the width of a member
does not affect the shear stress at failure for steel-rein-
forced concrete members, which indicates that the MCFT
could be used for both beams and slabs. Bentz et al.7 found
that despite the brittle nature of the reinforcement, FRP-
reinforced large concrete beams behave similarly in shear
to steel-reinforced concrete beams. In this paper, a series
of 20 tests is presented to investigate the influence of slab
width and depth, slab span, concrete compressive strength,
and type of concrete (lightweight versus normalweight) on
the shear strength of GFRP-reinforced slabs. The maxi-
mum deflection of the slabs under service loads satisfied
the American Association of State Highway and Transpor-
tation Officials’ AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifica-
tions8 in the tests for the slabs designed for flexure accord-
ing to ACI 440.1R-06 guidelines (Pantelides et al.9).
Experimental program
Twenty slabs were tested to investigate the behavior of
GFRP-reinforced concrete slabs constructed with high-
strength normalweight or lightweight concrete. The
construction variables included unit weight and compres-
sive strength of concrete, slab span and depth, slab width,
and reinforcement ratio. Four series of slabs were built
with different dimensions or reinforcement ratios. Figure 1
shows the top and bottom reinforcement for series A and
B slabs. Series A and B slabs have the same width (2 ft
[0.6 m]) but different spans and depths. Series C slabs have
the same reinforcement, thickness, and span as series A
slabs, but their widths are 6 ft (1.8 m). Series D slabs have
the same dimensions as series C slabs, but series D slabs
have a GFRP reinforcement ratio approximately half that
of series C slabs.
84 S um me r 2 0 1 2 | PCI Journal
Material properties
The normalweight concrete used in this study was ready-
mixed concrete incorporating a 3/4 in. (19 mm) crushed
limestone. The specified compressive strength of both
normalweight and lightweight concretes was 6000 psi
(41 MPa); however, several batches were cast at different
times and consequently the concrete compressive strength
for the normalweight concrete at the time of testing ranged
from 8500 psi (59 MPa) to 12,600 psi (87 MPa) and for
lightweight concrete from 8100 psi (56 MPa) to 10,900 psi
(75 MPa).
The lightweight concrete used was sand-lightweight con-
crete, which had a coarse aggregate (expanded shale) size
of 1/2 in. (13 mm). The unit weight of the sand-lightweight
concrete used was 123 lb/ft3 (1970 kg/m3).
The GFRP bars used for construction were no. 5 (16M)
bars. The tensile strength of the specific lot of GFRP
bars used in these tests was 103,700 psi (715 MPa),
and the modulus of elasticity was 6280 ksi (43 GPa), as
determined from tensile tests of the bars according to
ACI 440.3R-04.10
Table 1 shows the concrete compressive strength at the
time of testing, the actual reinforcement ratio, and the bal-
anced reinforcement ratio.
Test setup and procedure
All slabs were tested as simply supported members on two
reinforced concrete beams (Fig. 2). Elastomeric pads 6 in.
(150 mm) wide and 2 in. (50 mm) thick were placed on the
supporting beams so that the slabs could rotate freely near
the support without coming into contract with the beams.
The load was applied using a hydraulic actuator through a
10 in. × 20 in. × 1 in. (250 mm × 500 mm × 25 mm) steel
bearing plate for all slabs, which simulates the area of a
double-tire truck load on a bridge deck.8 The steel bearing
plate was placed directly on the concrete surface of the
panels. The wider panels are subjected to a combination of
one-way shear and punching shear. The load was applied
as a series of half-sine downward cycles of increasing am-
plitude without stress reversals. The load application was
displacement controlled at a constant rate of 0.2 in./min
(5 mm/min). The loading scheme was intended to simu-
late repeated truck loading applied to the slab of a precast
concrete bridge deck.
Test results
During testing, all slabs developed flexural cracks at low
loads and additional diagonal cracks as the loads increased.
Ultimately, the slabs failed in diagonal tension (Fig. 3).
After formation of the critical diagonal crack near one of
 2 ft 8 ft 2 ft

3 in. Support A 3 in.

2 in.

6 No. 5 at 4 in.

2.125 in.
2 ft
4 in. 2 in.
2 ft

Cover

9.25 in.
2 in.

1 in.
4 in.
A
24 No. 5 at 6 in.

Series A slabs

2 ft 9 ft - 6 in. 2 ft

3 in. Support A 3 in.

6 No. 5 at 4 in.
2 in.

2 ft
4 in. 2 in.

1 in. 2.125 in.

Cover
2 ft

10.75 in.
2 in.

A 4 in.
27 No. 5 at 6 in.

Series B slabs

2 ft 8 ft 2 ft 2 ft 8 ft 2 ft
3 in. Support A 3 in. 4 in. Support A 4 in.
2 in.

2 in.

8 No. 5 at 8 in. 6 in.

18 No. 5 at 4 in.
6 ft

6 ft

6 in.
2 in.

2 in.

A A
24 No. 5 at 6 in. 18 No. 5 at 8 in.
2.125 in.
2.125 in.

9.25 in.
9.25 in.

6 ft 6 ft
4 in. 5 in. 8 in.
Cover

Cover
1 in.
1 in.

8 in.
4 in. 2 in.

Section A-A Section A-A

Series C slabs Series D slabs

Figure 1. Dimensions for top and bottom glass-fiber-reinforced polymer reinforcement mat for slabs. Note: no. 5 = 16M; 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 ft = 0.305 m.

the two supports, the concrete crushed on the compression the bars were exposed, and was the result of the GFRP
face of the slabs. All slabs failed the same way regard- bars trying to carry the compression forces arising from
less of concrete type (normalweight or lightweight), slab the applied load. The GFRP bars in the bottom mat did not
dimensions, or amount of reinforcement. In a few tests, a fracture in any of the tests even though they experienced
few GFRP bars in the top mat near the outer edges of the significant tensile strain and deformation. Table 1 shows
slab snapped and sheared off after the ultimate load was the concrete compressive strength at the time of testing,
reached, shortly before the ultimate deflection (Fig. 3). the actual reinforcement ratio, the balanced reinforcement
This occurred after the concrete cover had spalled off and ratio, and the experimental shear capacity.

PCI Journal | S u m m e r 2012 85

 I
Table 1 Slab properties
Dimensions 4

Specimen nimber [Thickness psi p,, % Pb, % V, kip V,,,edl, kip

, l
3 l
;dh Lenh,:
r

IBJW 2 91/4
8 10370 094 095 306 127 171

2 B2NW ‘2j 91/4

8 12650 094 116 302 134 182

3 B2NW 2 91/4
8 8760 094 080 276 122 162

4 B1 LW 2 91/4
8 9090 094 083 25 1 123 164

5 BitW 91/4
8 10930 094 100 229 129 174

6B2LW 2 91/4
8 8700 0 94 0 80 23 0 12 1 122

7 61 LW* 2 91/4
8 9900 0 94 091 274 15 1 199

8 Bi NW 2 1 0/4 95 11 420 0 79 1 05 23 8 13 0 19 0

9 B2NW 2 4
10I 95 8840I 081 277 130 175

10 B1LW 2 10/4 95 9080 079 083 220 131 177

11 B2LW 2L 10I
4 95 8700 079 080 233 130 175

12 B1NUi 6’Ir 91/4

8 12130 096 111 876 393 529

13 B2NW 6 91/
8 8510 0 96 0 78 72 7 35 7 47 3

14 B1LW - 6 91/4
8 9080 0 96 0 83 61 3 36 3 3

15 B1tW 6 91/
8 9080 096 083 648 363 483

16 B21.W 6 91/4
8 8250 0 96 0 76 66 8 354 46 9

17 B21.W 91/
8 8060 0 96 0 74 67 6 35 1 46 5
— —

18 B1NWE 91/
8 12130 054 111 621 — 299 425

19 B1LWE 6 91/
8 9080 0 54 0 83 — 55 6 27 7 38 8

20 B2LWE 6 91/
8 8060 054 0 74 49 3 26 8 37 4

For this specimen the span was 6 7 ft

Note f = specified óöncrete compressive strength MCFT = modified compression field theory V, = experimental shear strength V, = shear force at
critical section for shear a distance daway from maximum moment location V = predicted shear capacity using first order MCFT
= predicted shear capacity using second order MCFT Pb = fiber reinforced polymer reinforcement ratio producing balanced strain conditions
pf= FRP reinforcement ratio 1 in = 25 4 mm 1 ft = 0 305 m 1 kip = 4 448 kN 1 psi = 6 895 kPa

*1

- -- -

L - - - 12 ft
8ft
-Loadframe
Load cell Ie[•- Bearing plate
cc
earing plate L
-0
I GFRP panel I -

Elastomenc pad
..

c..J
- - -
- Elastomeric pad
Concrete beam-r -

6 in

ElevatiOn:
4,
PLAN
Traffic direction
 Shear failure mode

Snapping and shearing off of top GFRP bars

Figure 3. Slab performance.

Shear strength prediction
using the MCFT
The MCFT is used to predict the shear strength of the
slabs. The MCFT assumes that the ultimate shear strength
of concrete members is related to the crack width at shear
failure, which is controlled by the strain effect and the size
effect. Because of the strain effect, the larger the longitudi-
nal strain, the wider the cracks and the lower the ultimate
shear strength. The size effect means that if two geo-
metrically similar beams or slabs with different depths are
subjected to the same shear stresses, the deeper the beam
the wider the crack width will be and, consequently, the
lower the ultimate shear strength will be; the size effect is
influenced by the aggregate size. For lightweight concrete
and high-strength normalweight concrete, the cement
matrix is stronger than the aggregate, and the cracks go
through the aggregate, thus eliminating any aggregate
interlock. Two simplified equations were used for shear ca-
pacity predictions. The first equation is a first-order linear
approximation, which was initially developed for steel-
reinforced concrete sections with the longitudinal strain at
middepth at shear failure x being less than 0.1% as shown
in Eq. (1), which is expressed in SI units as derived.5

PCI Journal | S u m m e r 2012 87

 Normalweight concrete slab Lightweight concrete slab

Figure 4. Shear cracks pass through the aggregate.

0.40 irII 1300

I qf;b,,d (1)
The strain effect is included via the strain term E,.. For
members not subjected to axial load that are not pre
[(1 ÷ 1500E x )I + S
)j stressed, the strain term is given by Hoult et al. as Eq. (3)
expressed in SI units.
where
M Id +V
V,, = predicted shear strength
‘
(3)
2EAr r

re
5 = effective crack spacing (mm) where

4 = specified concrete compressive strength (MPa) Mf = bending moment at the critical section for shear

b, = web width (mm) Ar = shear force at the critical section for shear, which is
evaluated at a distance d from the maximum moment
= effective shear depth to be taken as 0.9d (mm) location

d = distance from extreme compression fiber to the Er = elastic modulus of the reinforcement (GPa)
middle of the bottom FRP bar
A,. = area of the longitudinal reinforcement (mm
)
2
The size effect term for members without stirrups is given
by Hoult et al. as Eq. (2) expressed in SI units. When FRP reinforcement is used, typically higher longi
tudinal strains will be developed compared with steel re
inforcement. A second-order approximation to the MCFT
31.5d
Sxe 0.77d (2) theoretical diagonal crack width calculation leads to the
16 + a shear capacity prediction equation as Eq. (4) expressed in
where SI units.
5

ag = maximum aggregate size (mm) 0.30 1300 F

For normaiweight concrete with compressive strength
above 10,000 psi (70 MPa) or for lightweight concrete, the
aggregate size should be taken as zero because the cracks
tend to pass through the aggregate particles. This was
confirmed in the present tests. To avoid a discontinuity in
strength predictions, for normaiweight concrete Hoult et
5 suggested that the aggregate size be linearly reduced
al.
from the specified size to zero as the actual concrete
strength increases from 8700 psi (60 MPa) to 10,000 psi
(70 MPa).
V= 0.7 lf”A (4)
0.5+(l000ç.+0.15) 000+Sj
The experimental shear strengths of the specimens were
compared with Eq. (1) and Eq. (4). Figure 4 shows the
shear cracks passing through the coarse aggregate even
though some of the normaiweight concrete compressive
strength was slightly less than 10,000 psi (70 MPa); thus,
the aggregate size was considered to be zero in the shear
prediction equations for all specimens. Table 1 shows the
predicted shear capacity of the slabs using the first-order
Eq. (1) VPdl and the second-order Eq. (4) Vd. Figures 5
2

Summer 2012 PCI Journal

 2.5

Normalized shear strength Vc / Eq.(1)

2.0

Normalweight concrete
Lightweight concrete

1.5

1.0
7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 12,000 13,000
Concrete compressive strength, psi

Figure 5. Normalized shear strength versus concrete compressive strength using the first-order modified compression field theory Eq. (1). Note: 1 psi = 6.895 kPa.

2.0
Normalized shear strength Vc /Eq. (4)

1.5
Normalweight concrete
Lightweight concrete

1.0
7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 12,000 13,000
Concrete compressive strength, psi

Figure 6. Normalized shear strength versus concrete compressive strength using the second-order modified compression field theory Eq. (4). Note: 1 psi = 6.895 kPa.

PCI Journal | S u m m e r 2012 89


7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000
Concrete compressive strength, psi
Figure 7 Normalized shear strength versus concrete compressive strength using actual strain and the first order niodi
Note 1 psi = 6 895 kPa
and 6 show comparisons of the ratios of tested-to-predicted
shear strength versus concrete compressive strength for the
first-order and second-order MCFT predictions, respec
tively.
The average ratio of experimental shear strength—to—pre
dicted shear strength is 1.97, with a coefficient of variation
COV of 10.6% (Fig. 5). The average ratio of experimental
shear strength—to—predicted shear strength is 1.46, with a
COy of 10.7% (Fig. 6). The results show that both equa
tions conservatively estimate the shear strength. The sec
ond-order equation estimates are closer to the experimen
tally obtained shear capacity. This is expected because of
the higher longitudinal strain in the GFRP bars compared
with steel bars. However, the ratio of experimental shear
strength—to—predicted shear strength for both the first-
order Eq. (1) and the second-order Eq. (4) is 43% and 27%
higher, respectively, than the beams or slabs in the study by
Hoult et al. This may be caused by the high compressive
strength of the concrete and the fact that the steel bear
ing plate was placed directly on the concrete surface, thus
reducing the shear span. In addition, only GFRP reinforced
concrete specimens were included in this research, whereas
the study by Hoult et al. considered steel, GFRP, carbon
FRE and aramid FRP reinforced specimens.
Normaiweight concrete slabs generally had higher ratios
of experimental shear strength—to—predicted shear strength
—
Summer 2012 PCIJournal
• Normaiweight concrete
Lightweight concrete
11,000 12,000 13,000
fied compression field theory Eq 1)
1
than lightweight concrete slabs (Fig. 5 and 6). For the
first-order expression, the average ratio of experimental-to-
predicted shear strength for normaiweight concrete slabs is
2.14, with a COV of 9.2%; the average ratio for lightweight
concrete slabs is 1.86, with a COVof 6.1% (Fig. 5). For
the second-order expression, the average ratio for nor
malweight concrete slabs is 1.58 with a COV of 9.9%; the
average ratio for lightweight concrete slabs is 1.38 with a
COV of 8.1% (Fig. 6). In both the first-order and second-
order MCFT predictions, the lightweight concrete slabs
had an experimental-to-predicted shear strength ratio equal
to 87% of the normalweight concrete slabs. This shows
that even though the predictions are conservative for light
weight concrete, they are less conservative than the predic
tions for normalweight concrete. Thus, the unit weight of
the concrete in addition to compressive strength needs to
be considered in predictions for shear strength.
Figures 7 and 8 show the experimental shear strength
normalized by the shear predictions of Eq. (1) and Eq. (4),
respectively, using the actual strain in the GFRP bars
measured during the tests. The strain in the GFRP bars
was measured using strain gauges applied to the bars of
the bottom reinforcing mat at midspan. For the first-order
MCFT expression, the average ratio for normalweight
concrete slabs is 3.05, with a COVof 17.3%; the average
ratio for lightweight concrete slabs is 2.54, with a COV of
12.0% (Fig. 7). For the second-order MCFT expression,
 2.0
Normalized shear strength Vc /Eq. (4)
1.5
1.0
7,000
Figure 8. Normalized shear strength versus concrete compressive strength using actual strain and the second-order modified compression field theory Eq. (4).
Note: 1 psi = 6.895 kPa.
the average ratio for normalweight concrete slabs is 1.62
with a COV of 15.7%. The average ratio for lightweight
concrete slabs is 1.37 with a COV of 9.7% (Fig. 8). In both
the first-order and second-order MCFT predictions, the
lightweight concrete slabs had a shear ratio of 83% to 85%
of the normalweight concrete slabs, respectively. Compar-
ing the results of Fig. 5 to Fig. 7 and Fig. 6 to Fig. 8, the
different ratios of experimental shear strength to predicted
shear strength demonstrate that Eq. (3) slightly underpre-
dicts the actual strain of the tested concrete slabs in this
research.
Table 2 shows the measured and predicted strain using the
first-order pred1 and second-order pred2 approximations at
the middepth of the slabs. The measured middepth strain
is defined as the maximum strain measured at the bottom
longitudinal GFRP bars divided by two. The overall aver-
age ratio of the first-order MCFT expression predicted-to-
measured strain is 60.5% for normalweight concrete slabs
and 61.6% for lightweight concrete slabs. In addition, the
measured-to-predicted strain ratio is higher for slabs with
a longer span (series B) and slabs with a smaller reinforce-
ment ratio (series D) for both the first-order and second-or-
der equations. The overall average ratio of the second-order
MCFT expression predicted to measured strain is 82.0%
for normalweight concrete slabs and 83.1% for lightweight
concrete slabs. The second-order equation predicts more
Normalweight concrete
Lightweight concrete
8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 12,000 13,000
Concrete compressive strength, psi
accurately the middepth strain than the first-order equation.
Both the first-order and second-order equations predict
similar strains for normalweight and lightweight concrete.
Strain predictions using the MCFT equations ignore ten-
sion stiffening, which might help explain the variance
between measured and predicted strains.
Shear design using the MCFT
It is interesting to examine the conservatism of the two
MCFT equations from the designer’s perspective. The
assumptions used in the design of normalweight and light-
weight concrete slabs are as follows: the design concrete
compressive strength is 6000 psi (40 MPa), the GFRP
bar modulus of elasticity is 5920 ksi (40.8 GPa), and its
ultimate tensile strength is 95,000 psi (655 MPa). Using
the design approach recommended by Hoult et al. with
strain compatibility analysis, the predicted shear strength
of the concrete slabs is conservative. The resulting average
experimental-to-predicted shear strength ratio is 3.57 and
3.54 for normalweight and lightweight concrete slabs,
respectively, when using the first-order MCFT prediction.
The COV is 10% and 7.4% for normalweight and light-
weight concrete slabs, respectively. Using the second-order
MCFT prediction, the ratio of experimental to predicted
shear strength is 1.86 and 1.85 for normalweight and light-
weight concrete slabs, respectively. The COV is 11.3% and
PCI Journal | S u m m e r 2012 91
 tB1NW .: 061 036 059 - 079

I 060 -

,Ic
038
- --
063 ;r 0.51 085
-

3B2NW - 059 034 059 0.46 078

nd 035 nd 0.46 nd
—

059 — -037 1 062 0.49 084

060 034 057 - 076

nd 031 nd nd

8B1LNW
-

055 039 072 j 054 098 —

9 B2NWi 066 - 037 056 050 075

*R •tL-2’ -

r10Bitwvfr -‘ 056j 037

r
066
r
050 089
J
055 037 066 039 089

12 B1NW 079 -

—
037 047 050
_ga 063
-
- - -
- - -- -‘-

13 82NW 058 034 058 — 045— 078

14EtLW 070 034 049 - 046 065

1581LW 060 034 057 046 076

/ - -.

it 821W 045 033 • 074 044 098

r
•

063 033
-

053 044 070

18 B1NWE 072 051 070 072 - 100

19 B1LWE 079 047 060 065 084

— 20 B2LWE- 064 046

‘r 072 - 064 1 L
100

For this specimen the span was 67 ft. —

Note MCFT = modified compression field theory n d = no data 6 1 = predicted

ma = average longitudinal strain at middepth at shear failure ç,
longitudinal strain at middepth at shear failure using first order MCFT = predicted longitudinal strain at middepth at shear failure using second
order MCFT 1 ft = 0 305 m i;-.
-- •••- --

8.1%, respectively. The conservatism of the second-order
MCFT in the design process is greater than the experimen
tal predicted ratios observed in the tests. However, this is
desirable in actual design, and thus the design approach
recommended by Hoult et al. produces acceptable results.
To compare the results of the GFRP reinforced slabs
tested in the present study, in particular those cast with
lightweight cQncrete, with existing data for normalweight
concrete slabs reinforced with GFRP bars, a comparison is
made of the present test results with the database provided
in Hoult et al., which includes studies found in other refer
20 Additional studies of normalweight concrete
-
11
ences.
specimens reinforced with GFRP bars 2123 were included
’
7 Figure 11 shows the size effect for normaiweight and
in the present study to create an updated database. All
specimens in the updated database are normaiweight con-
crete beams or slabs reinforced with GFRP bars without
any transverse reinforcement that failed in one-way shear.
Figures 9 and 10 show the strain effect using the first-
order and second-order MCFT equations for the GFRP-re
inforced members using the updated database, respectively.
The longitudinal strain at middepth is the strain predicted
using the MCFT, and the shear strength is normalized so
only the strain effect is shown. Figures 9 and 10 show that
lightweight concrete slabs follow the same trend as nor
malweight concrete beams or slabs, which indicates that
the strain effect is unchanged and could be predicted using
the MCFT for lightweight concrete slabs.
lightweight concrete members reinforced with GFRP bars.
The size effect is derived using the tested shear strength
 Longitudinal strain at mid-depth, mm/mm
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008
0.35
50
Updated database
Present normalweight concrete
Present lightweight concrete
0.30

40

0.25

Normalized shear stress, MPa

Normalized shear stress, psi

30
0.20

0.15
20

0.10

10
0.4
vc = 0.05
1 +1500 x

0 0.00
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008
Longitudinal strain at mid-depth, in./in.

Figure 9. Strain effect: normalweight concrete versus lightweight concrete slabs for first-order modified compression field theory Eq. (1). Note: Vc = predicted shear
strength; εx = longitudinal strain at middepth at predicted shear failure.

Longitudinal strain at mid-depth, mm/mm

0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008
0.35
4.0 Updated atabase
Present normalweight concrete
Present lightweight concrete 0.30
3.5
Normalized shear stres, psi roots

3.0 0.25 Normalized shear stress, MPa roots

2.5
0.20

2.0
0.15

1.5

0.10
1.0
0.3
vc =
0.5 + (1000 x + 0.15)
0.7 0.05
0.5

0.0 0.00
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008
Longitudinal strain at mid-depth, in./in.

Figure 10. Strain effect: normalweight concrete versus lightweight concrete slabs for second-order modified compression field theory Eq. (4). Note: Vc = predicted
shear strength; εx = longitudinal strain at middepth at predicted shear failure.

PCI Journal | S u m m e r 2012 93

___

Effective crack spacing, mm

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
2.5

0 Updated database
• Present normaiweight concrete
(0
0 lightweight concrete
2.0 0
0 0
0
Co 0
C
0)
0
E 0 .
C .
a) .
a 1.5 0
Co $0 .
V 00 0 •
a, 0 0
(0 0000
a, B
0 0 Is 00 0$ 0
0

1.0 0 0
0 0 00
a)
a,
N
Cl) 0
1300
0.5 1000+ S
0 0

0.0
10 20 30 40 50
Effective crack spacing, in.

Figure 11 Size effect normaiweight concrete versus lightweight concrete slabs for second order modified compression field theory Eq (4) Note S = effective
crackspacing.

normalized by the strain effect and the quantity bj4.
Figure 11 shows that lightweight concrete slabs follow
the same trend as normalweight concrete beams or slabs,
which indicates that the size effect is unchanged and could
be predicted using the MCFT for lightweight concrete
slabs.
The size effect and the strain effect do not exhibit signifi
cant differences between normalweight concrete and light
weight concrete beams or slabs. This is also verified by
comparing the predicted and experimental shear strength
results of all beams or slabs in the updated experimental
database. For the first-order MCFT equation, the average
experimental-to-predicted shear strength ratio is 1.59 and
1.84 for normaiweight concrete and lightweight concrete
members, respectively. The COV is 35.0% and 5.9% for
normalweight and lightweight concrete members, respec
tively. Figure 12 shows the nonnalized shear strength
versus concrete compressive strength using the second-
order MCFT. For the second-order MCFT equation, the
average ratio of experimental shear strength to predicted
shear strength is 1.27 and 1.37, and the COVis 27.2% and
5.8% for normalweight and lightweight concrete members,
respectively. The ratio of experimental-to-predicted shear
strength is lower for normalweight concrete beams or slabs
than the ratio for lightweight concrete slabs when the ratios
are compared with the updated database. These results are
the opposite of what was found for the specimens tested
in the present study. However, when the slabs and beams
are distinguished,.it is observed that this is caused by the
member depth effect.
The yellow diamonds in Fig. 12 represent only slab
specimens collected from other research. Comparing the
experimental-to-predicted shear strength ratio, slab speci
mens have a higher ratio than beams. Considering only the
slabs collected from other research and the slabs from the
present research, the average experimental ratio for nor
malweight concrete is 1.56, and for lightweight concrete
it is 1.37 using the second-order equation. Lightweight
concrete slabs have a ratio 88% of normalweight concrete
slabs, which follows the same trend as the slabs tested in
the present research. The comparisons carried out indicate
that a reduction factor is needed for the use of lightweight
concrete members reinforced with GFRP bars. Because all
lightweight slabs come from the present study, it is likely
that differences in bearing plate details are systematic for
such tests but not for the normalweight slabs from other
studies. This can also be a factor in the variability of light
weight versus normaiweight concrete results.

WL
- —

,
—

es4
-

WE Summer 2012 PCI Journal Jf’ 4P -

AS1Ufl
 2.0
1.8
Normalized shear strength Vc /Eq. (4)
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0 2,000
Figure 12. Normalized shear strength versus concrete compressive strength using second-order modified compression field theory Eq. (4) for the updated database.
Note: Vc = predicted shear strength.1 psi = 6.895 kPa.
The size effect factor used in Eq. (1) and Eq. (4) was
developed based on steel reinforced concrete members,
which have a maximum strain at middepth of the mem-
ber of 0.001.3 The measured average strain in the bottom
GFRP bars in the present research at midspan is 0.012;
thus the middepth strain is 0.006. The measured strain in
the tested slabs is six times the maximum strain used to
develop the size effect factor. Figure 9 in Bentz and Col-
lins3 was redeveloped, and higher strain data curves were
added (Fig. 13). Six of the curves in Fig. 13 represent
the assumed middepth strain from 0.001 to 0.006. A new
curve shown in Fig. 13 was chosen to compare with the
one in the MCFT. This curve lies close to the middle of the
data from the MCFT analyses across the size range and is
similar to the size factor used in Eq. (1) and Eq. (4). The
size effect factor intended to compare with the MCFT is
obtained from Eq. (5) in SI units.
1450
1000 + 1.5Sxe
Using Eq. (5) to replace the size effect factor in Eq. (1)
and Eq. (4), Table 3 shows the prediction results. Table 3
shows that Eq. (5) gave predictions closer to the experi-
mental results. However, the size effect factor in Eq. (1)
Updated database (beam)
Updated database (slab)
Present normalweight concrete
Present lightweight concrete
4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000
Concrete compressive strength, psi
and Eq. (4) could be used for both steel and FRP reinforce-
ment, and the experimental-to-predicted shear strength ra-
tio improved only slightly using Eq. (5). This indicates that
even if the strain achieved in GFRP-reinforced concrete
members is higher than that in steel reinforced concrete
members, the size effect factor in Eq. (1) and Eq. (4) is
sufficiently accurate for predicting the shear capacity of
GFRP-reinforced concrete members.
Conclusion
This paper presents experimental results for 20 GFRP
reinforced concrete slabs cast with either normalweight
or lightweight concrete and compares the shear strength
obtained in the tests with predictions using MCFT. The
following conclusions were drawn:
• The second-order MCFT equation accurately predicts
the shear strength of normalweight and lightweight
(5) concrete slabs reinforced with GFRP bars. The first-
order MCFT equation is more conservative compared
with the second-order equation. Lightweight concrete
slabs, which failed in one-way shear, show the same
size and strain effects as normalweight concrete slabs
or beams reinforced with GFRP bars.
PCI Journal | S u m m e r 2012 95
 Effective cracking spacing parameter Sxe, mm
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
1.4

1.2

1.0
MCFT
0.001 in./in.
Size effect factor

0.8 0.002 in./in.

0.003 in./in.
0.004 in./in.
0.6 0.005 in./in.
0.006 in./in.
Eq. (5)
0.4

0.2

0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Effective cracking spacing parameter Sxe, in.

Figure 13. Size effect factor for middepth strain. Note: MCFT = modified compression field theory.

• The average predicted-to-measured middepth strain
ratio was 60% for both normalweight and lightweight
concrete slabs using the first-order MCFT equation.
The average ratio was 82% for both normalweight
and lightweight concrete slabs using the second-order
MCFT equation. Strain predictions using the MCFT
equations ignore tension stiffening, which might help
explain the variance between measured and predicted
strains.
• Using the strains from flexural design for the first-
order and second-order MCFT equations results in
conservative designs because the actual concrete
compressive strength and guaranteed GFRP properties
are generally higher than the design values.
• The ratio of experimental to predicted shear strength
from MCFT theory is lower for lightweight than for
normalweight concrete slabs reinforced with GFRP

Table 3. Comparison results for different size effect factor

Size effect factor Concrete type Vexp /Vpred 1 COV1 Vexp /Vpred 2 COV2

Normalweight 1.59 0.35 1.27 0.27

1300
Eq. (1)
1000 + Sxe Lightweight 1.84 0.06 1.37 0.06

Normalweight 1.52 0.20 1.22 0.20

1450
Eq. (5)
1000 + 1.5Sxe Lightweight 1.70 0.06 1.29 0.06

Normalweight(5)/Normalweight(1) 0.95 0.57 0.96 0.62

Lightweight(5)/Lightweight(1) 0.92 0.97 0.94 1.01

Note: COV1 = coefficient of variation for first-order MCFT; COV2 = coefficient of variation for second-order MCFT; MCFT = modified compression field
theory; Sxe = effective crack spacing; Vexp = experimental shear strength; Vpred1 = predicted shear capacity using first-order MCFT; Vpred 2 = predicted
shear capacity using second-order MCFT.

96 S um me r 2 0 1 2 | PCI Journal
 bars. A reduction factor is required for the design of
lightweight concrete slabs when GFRP bars are used
as reinforcement.
• Although the size effect factor in the original MCFT
was developed based on strains in steel-reinforced
concrete members, it is still accurate for the shear pre-
diction of GFRP-reinforced concrete members, which
achieve higher strains.
• Both normalweight and lightweight concrete slabs
tested in this study were constructed with concrete
having measured compressive strengths in excess of
8000 psi (55 MPa). Additional results for normal-
strength lightweight concrete slabs are required to
validate the findings of the present study.
Acknowledgments
The research reported in this paper was supported by the
Utah Department of Transportation and the Expanded
Shale, Clay and Slate Institute. The authors acknowledge
the contribution of Hughes Bros Inc., Utelite Corp., and
Hanson Structural Precast. The authors acknowledge the
assistance of L. D. Reaveley, professor; M. Bryant; B. T.
Besser; and C. A. Burningham of the University of Utah in
the experimental portion of the research. The authors are
grateful to N. A. Hoult, professor, of Queen’s University
and E. C. Bentz, professor, of the University of Toronto for
making their database available to the authors.
References
1. ACI (American Concrete Institute) 440.1R-06. 2006.
Guide for the Design and Construction of Structural
Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars. Farmington Hills,
MI: ACI.
2. Vecchio, F. J., and M. P. Collins. 1986. “The Modified
Compression Field Theory for Reinforced Concrete
Elements Subjected to Shear.” ACI Structural Journal
83 (2): 219–231.
3. Bentz, E. C., and M. P. Collins. 2006. “Development
of the 2004 CSA A23.3 Shear Provisions for Rein-
forced Concrete.” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineer-
ing 33 (5): 521–534.
4. Sherwood, E. G., E. C. Bentz, and M.P. Collins. 2007.
“The Effect of Aggregate Size on the Beam-Shear Strength
of Thick Slabs.” ACI Structural Journal 104 (2): 180–190.
5. Hoult, N. A., E. G. Sherwood, E. C. Bentz, and M. P.
Collins. 2008. “Does the Use of FRP Reinforcement
Change the One-Way Shear Behavior of Reinforced
Concrete Slabs?” Journal of Composites for Construc-
tion 12 (2): 125–133.
6. Sherwood, E. G., A. S. Lubell, E. C. Bentz, and M.
P. Collins. 2006. “One-Way Shear Strength of Thick
Slabs and Wide Beams.” ACI Structural Journal 103
(6): 794–802.
7. Bentz, E. C., L. Massam, and M. P. Collins. 2010.
“Shear Strength of Large Concrete Members with
FRP Reinforcement.” Journal of Composites for Con-
struction 14 (6): 637–646.
8. AASHTO (American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials). 2007. AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications. 4th ed. Washington,
DC: AASHTO.
9. Pantelides, C. P., R. Liu, and L. D. Reaveley. 2011.
“Lightweight Concrete Bridge Deck Precast Panels
Reinforced with GFRP Bars.” ACI Structural Journal
275 (3): 1–18.
10. ACI 440.3R. 2004. Guide Test Methods for Fiber-Re-
inforced Polymers (FRPs) for Reinforcing or Strength-
ening Concrete Structures. Farmington Hills, MI: ACI.
11. Alkhrdaji, T., M. A. Wideman, A. Belarbi, and A.
Nanni. 2001. “Shear Strength of GFRP RC Beams
and Slabs.” In Proceedings CCC 2001 Composites in
Construction, Porto, Portugal, October 10–12, 2001,
409–414. Leiden, the Netherlands: A. A. Balkema.
12. Ashour, A. F. 2006. “Flexural and Shear Capacities of
Concrete Beams Reinforced with GFRP Bars.” Con-
struction and Building Materials 20 (10): 1005–1015.
13. Deitz, D. H., I. E. Harik, and H. Gersund. 1999. “One-
Way Slabs Reinforced with Glass Fiber Reinforced
Polymer Reinforcing Bars.” In Proceedings, 4th Inter-
national Symposium Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP)
Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, FRPRCS4,
279–286. Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete
Institute.
14. El-Sayed, A. K., E. El-Salakawy, and B. Benmokrane.
2005. “Shear Strength of One-Way Concrete Slabs
Reinforced with Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composite
Bars.” Journal of Composites for Construction 9 (2):
147–157.
15. El-Sayed, A. K., E. El-Salakawy, and B. Benmokrane.
2006. “Shear Strength of FRP-Reinforced Concrete
Beams Without Transverse Reinforcement.” ACI
Structural Journal 103 (2): 235–243.
16. El-Sayed, A. K., E. El-Salakawy, and B. Benmokrane.
2006. “Shear Capacity of High-Strength Concrete
Beams Reinforced with FRP Bars.” ACI Structural
Journal 103 (3): 383–389.
PCI Journal | S u m m e r 2012 97
17. Gross, S. P., J. R. Yost, D. W. Dinehart, E. Svensen,
and N. Liu. 2001. “Shear Strength of Normal and
High Strength Concrete Beams Reinforced with GFRP
Bars.” In Proceedings, International Conference on
High Performance Materials in Bridges, 426—437.
Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.
18. Tariq, M., and J. P. Newhook. 2003. “Shear Testing of
FRP Reinforced Concrete without Transverse Rein-
forcement.” In Proceedings, Annual Conference of the
Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, 1330—1339.
Montreal, QC, Canada: Canadian Society of Civil
Engineering.
19. Tureyen, A., and R. J. Frosch. 2002. “Shear Tests of
FRP-Reinforced Beams Without Stirrups.” ACI Struc-
tural Journal 99 (4): 427—434.
20. Yost, J. R., S. P. Gross, and D. W. Dinehart. 2001.
“Shear Strength of Normal Strength Concrete Beams
Reinforced with Deformed GFRP Bars.” Journal of
Composites for Construction 5 (4): 268—275.
21. Alam, M. S., and A. Hussein. 2009. “Shear Strength of
Concrete Beams Reinforced with Glass Fibre Rein-
forced Polymer (GFRP) Bars.” In Proceedings of 9th
International Symposium on Fiber Reinforced Polymer
Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, FRPRCS-9.
Adelaide, Australia: ICE Australia.
22. Jang, H., M. Kim, I. Cho, and C. Kim. 2009. “Con-
crete Shear Strength of Beams Reinforced with FRP
Bars According to Flexural Reinforcement Ratio and
Shear Span to Depth Ratio.” In Proceedings of 9th
International Symposium on Fiber Reinforced Polymer
Reinforcementfor Concrete Structures, FRPRCS-9.
Adelaide, Australia: ICE Australia.
23. Swamy, N., and M. Aburawi. 1997. “Structural 1mph-
cations of Using GFRP Bars as Concrete Reinforce-
ment.” In Proceedings of 3rd International Sympo
sium, FRPRCS-3, Non-Metallic (FRP) Reinforcement
for Concrete Structures, Vol. 2, 503—510. Tokyo,
Japan: Japan Concrete Institute.
Notation
ag = maximum aggregate size in millimeters
A,. = area of the longitudinal reinforcement
= web width
COV = coefficient of variation
1 = coefficient of variation for first order modified
COy
compression field theory
Summer 2012 PCI Journal
2 = coefficient of variation for second-order modified
COV
compression field theory
d = distance from extreme compression fiber to middle
of bottom fiber-reinforced-polymer bar
d = effective shear depth to be taken as 0.9d
Er = elastic modulus of reinforcement
4 = specified concrete compressive strength
1
M = bending moment at critical section for shear, a
distance d away from maximum moment location
= effective crack spacing
V = predicted shear strength
l’, experimental shear strength
= shear force at critical section for shear, a distance
d away from maximum moment location
= predicted shear capacity using first-order MCFT
Vpre = predicted shear capacity using second-order
MCFT
Em=e = average longitudinal strain at middepth at shear
failure
= predicted longitudinal strain at middepth at shear
failure using first-order MCFT
= predicted longitudinal strain at middepth at shear
failure using second-order MCFI
= longitudinal strain at middepth at predicted shear
failure
Pb = fiber-reinforced-polymer reinforcement ratio pro-
ducing balanced strain conditions
Pf = fiber-reinforced-polymer reinforcement ratio
- - ;- -
‘ - -
-, S
- -, ‘-
— -
About the authors
Ruifen Liu is a PhD candidate in
the Civil and Environmental
Engineering Department of the
University of Utah. She received
her bachelor’s degree and MS
from Beijing Jiaotong University.
Her research interests include
design and construction of structural normalweight and
lightweight concrete reinforced with fiber-reinforced-
polymer bars.
Chris P. Pantelides is a professor
in the Civil and Environmental
Engineering Department of the
University of Utah. He received
his bachelor’s degree at the
American University of Beirut
and his MS and PhD from the
University of Missouri–Rolla. His research interests
include seismic design and rehabilitation of reinforced
concrete buildings and bridges.
Abstract
The ultimate shear capacity of slabs reinforced with
glass-fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars is com-
pared with the shear strength predicted using the
modified compression field theory (MCFT). This paper
uses the results of 20 tests of GFRP-reinforced slabs
with either lightweight or normalweight concrete with
measured strengths in excess of 8000 psi (55 MPa).
Several parameters were examined, including slab
width, span, thickness, and reinforcement ratio of
GFRP bars. It is shown that the MCFT can accurately
predict shear strength for both normalweight and light-
weight concrete slabs reinforced with GFRP bars.
Keywords
Bar, GFRP, glass-fiber-reinforced polymer, lightweight
concrete, normalweight concrete, shear strength.
Review policy
This paper was reviewed in accordance with the
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute’s peer-review
process.
Reader comments
Please address any reader comments to journal@pci
.org or Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, c/o PCI
Journal, 200 W. Adams St., Suite 2100, Chicago, IL
60606. J
PCI Journal | S u m m e r 2012 99