Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Materials 2022; 31: 767–774

Research Article

Shaysh Aziz Mohammed* and AbdulMuttailb I. Said

Analysis of concrete beams reinforced by GFRP

bars with varying parameters
[Link] the number of layers of reinforcement, and the type of rein-
received April 13, 2022; accepted May 01, 2022 forcement bar.
Abstract: Structural buildings consist of concrete and Keywords: GFRP bars, deflection, concrete, steel bar,
steel, and these buildings have confronted many chal- cracks, ductility
lenges from various aggressive environments against the
materials manufactured from them. It contains high water
levels and buildings whose concrete cover may be
damaged and thus lead to the deterioration and corro- 1 Introduction
sion of steel. It was important to have an alternative
to steel, such as the glass fiber reinforced polymer Steel and concrete are basic and commonly used mate-
(GFRP), which is distinguished by its great effective- rials in several buildings. Due to the plenty of use of these
ness in resisting corrosion, as well as its strong tensile materials in construction, it was necessary to work on
resistance. Still, one of its drawbacks is that it has a low finding alternatives with better properties at all levels.
modulus of elasticity. This research article aims to con- Steel was one of these essential elements that were the
duct a numerical study using the nonlinear finite ele- focus of attention of engineers and researchers. The pre-
ment ABAQUS program on eight beam models with vious researchers explained that a fiber-reinforced polymer
various parameters such as stirrup spacing, compres- (FRP) was one of the appropriate materials to give better
sive strength, reinforcement layer, and type of bar rein- properties than steel in several aspects, including light-
forcement under four-point bending. The result shows weight compared to steel, higher tensile strength than
that the ultimate load capacity of the GFRP beam is higher steel [1–4], and not affected by electric and magnetic fields
than that of a beam reinforced with steel and the number which are advantageous for their use in civil infrastructure.
and width of cracks are greater in the GFRP-reinforced Furthermore, since they are non-conductive, they are sui-
beam than in the steel-reinforced beam. In general, the table for medical applications that are highly sensitive to
serviceability reflected by cracks and deflection is lower electromagnetic fields, including magnetic resonance ima-
in GFRP-reinforced beams than in steel-reinforced beams ging facilities [5]. Also, most importantly, it does not cause
with higher serviceability. The results, on either hand, corrosion or be affected by moisture, as is the case in steel or
showed the expected behavior of GFRP, which is linear concrete buildings. According to the ACI 440 guide [6],
elastic to the failure stage. These beams are divided into over-reinforcing glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP)-rein-
four groups of beams with different variables studied to forced concrete beams are required so that they fail due to
understand GFRP bars’ behavior under static loading. The concrete crushing rather than rebar rupture. The flexural
variables taken in this study are the spacing between the behavior of GFRP of reinforced concrete beams exhibits
stirrups, the compressive strength of concrete, the effect of negligible ductility due to the linear elastic brittle behavior
of GFRP bars. A beam or structural member can sustain
inelastic deformation without losing its ability to resist loads
before failure is known as ductility [7]. The beams were
chosen as one of the essential parts of the building whose
 behavior must be studied during the use GFRP bars as a
* Corresponding author: Shaysh Aziz Mohammed, Civil Engineering substitute for steel and to know the extent to which they are
Department, College of Engineering, University of Baghdad,
affected by the direction of flexural behavior and stresses.
Baghdad, Iraq, e-mail: Shaysh96@[Link]
AbdulMuttailb I. Said: Civil Engineering Department, College of
Nonlinear finite element analysis will be carried out using
Engineering, University of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq, the ABAQUS computer program to simulate the behavior of
e-mail: [Link]@[Link] such beams under four-point bending.

Open Access. © 2022 Shaysh Aziz Mohammed and AbdulMuttailb I. Said, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
768  Shaysh Aziz Mohammed and AbdulMuttailb I. Said

Figure 1: Parts of beam model.

plasticity, which is close to the smeared cracking model,

but is closer to reality. The second part is concerned
with the representation of steel, where the classical
metal plasticity theory was used [8]. This theory is based
on a standard Mises model with associated plastic flow
known as von Mises yield surface. The beam parts con-
sist of GFRP and steel bars, stirrups, and bearing plates
(Figure 1).
These parts are defined according to the materials
manufactured in the property field, where the concrete
properties of elastic behavior and plasticity parameters
of concrete damage were defined [9]. After concrete, the
properties of GFRP and steel are defined, which are elas-
ticity and plasticity parameters, the Young’s modulus
and Poisson’s ratio. Finally, bearing and support plates
defined as steel materials with the properties of elastic
steel. In the next stage of the modeling, the beam parts
Figure 2: Assembly of beam.
are assembled, then the nature of the loads applied to
the beams are defined, which are static loads. Figure 2
1.1 Modeling of beams shows the beam after assembly.
The interaction between all sections of the beams is
The beams were modeled under four-point bending using described, and one of the most important parts is the
the ABAQUS program and using different theories to nature of the relationship between concrete and GFRP,
understand the behavior of GFRP and introduce the pro- which is a perfect bonding relationship. Figure 3 shows
gram for it to reach convincing scientific results. The the beam interaction. The next stage defines the loads
models of the materials utilized are determined by their and the boundary conditions represented by the hinge
qualities and theories adopted which are divided into two and roller. To obtain acceptable and good results, several
parts. The first part of the theory of concrete representation attempts are made to reach the appropriate mesh size in
is the use of the common model, which is concrete damaged the meshing stage. Figure 4 shows the beam meshing.

Figure 3: Interaction of beam.

 Analysis of concrete beams reinforced by GFRP bars with varying parameters  769

Figure 4: Meshing of beam.

Table 1: The specifics of modeling beams under static loading. The variables taken in this study
are the spacing between the stirrup, the compressive
Groups Sample Spacing Compressive Bar Bar strength of concrete, the effect of the number of layers
(mm) strength top bottom of reinforcement, and the type of reinforcement bar. The
(MPa) (mm) (mm) dimensions of the beams are the length of the beams is
Group 1 A1 90 50 2 Ø 8 3 Ø 12 2,700 mm, the clear span is 2,500 mm, the width of the
A2 150 50 2 Ø 8 3 Ø 12 beams is 180 mm, and the depth is 260 mm. These models
Group 2 B3 90 35 2 Ø 8 3 Ø 12 are divided into four groups, each group consists of two
B4 90 70 2 Ø 8 3 Ø 12 beams, and the variables taken in this study are different
Group 3 C5 90 40 2 Ø 8 3 Ø 12
for each group, the first group consists of two beams, and
C6 90 40 2 Ø 8 4 Ø 10
Group 4 GFRP 90 50 2 Ø 8 3 Ø 12 the spacing was changed between stirrup at different
Steel 90 50 2 Ø 8 3 Ø 12 values of 90 and 150 mm. The second group consists of
two beams and the compressive strength of the concrete
1.2 Case study was changed at different values of 35 and 70 MPa. In the
third group, there are also two beams, and the reinforce-
In this study, a group of beams with different variables ment layers changed, once one layer (3 Ø 12 mm) and
were studied to understand the behavior of GFRP bars once two layers (4 Ø 10 mm). The fourth group consists

Figure 5: Beam details.

770  Shaysh Aziz Mohammed and AbdulMuttailb I. Said

Table 2: The properties of bars

Type of bars Tensile strength, fy (MPa) Rupture strain, ε Modulus of elasticity, E (MPa)

GFRP 850 0.017 50,000

Steel 420 0.0021 200,000

Table 3: Damage of plasticity data has a high modulus of elasticity and has a higher ductility
behavior. Table 2 shows the manufacturer’s properties of
Parameter ψ ϵ fb0/fc0 K µ GFRP and steel bars.
Value 31 0.1 1.16 0.667 0.0001
Boom GFRP bar
180
160
140
180 120

Load (kN)
160 100
140 80 A1
120 60
A2
Load (kN)

100 40
80 20
A1 0
60
A2 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
40
20 Strain
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Figure 8: Strain of the bottom bar for specimens beams A1 and A2.
Deflecon (mm)

180
Figure 6: Load–deflection curve for specimens beams A1 and A2.
160
140
of two beams, the first beam is reinforced with GFRP bars 120
Load (kN)

and the second beam is reinforced with steel bars. Figure 4 100
and Table 1 show beam’s details (Figure 5). 80 B3
60
B4
40
20
1.3 Properties of bars 0
0 20 40 60 80
GFRP bars are characterized by high tensile strength and Deflecon (mm)
low modulus of elasticity, which gives them a brittle
behavior that leads to sudden failure, unlike steel, which Figure 9: Load–deflection curve for specimens beams B3 and B4.

Top concrete fiber

180
160
140
120
Load (kN)

100
80 A1
60
40 A2
20
0
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003 0.0035
Strain

Figure 7: Strain in top concrete fiber for specimens beams A1 Figure 10: Strain in top concrete fiber for specimens beams B3
and A2. and B4.
 Analysis of concrete beams reinforced by GFRP bars with varying parameters  771

Boom GFRP bar

160
140
120
100

Load (kN)
80
C5
60
C6
40
20
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
Strain

Figure 11: Strain of the bottom bar for specimens beams B3 and B4. Figure 14: Strain of the bottom bar for specimens beams C5 and C6.

1.4 ABAQUS parameters 2 Results

After analyzing the beams using the ABAQUS 2019 soft-
These parameters with these values came as a result of
ware, and as expected, the results showed the behavior of
many previous research and studies in the field of the
the linear elastic GFRP rebar until the failure stage. In
general behavior of concrete in its usual form in the the-
addition, there is no yielding point as in the case of steel
ories of finite elements [10,11]. Table 3 shows the damage
rebar, and this is due to the characteristics of the FRP
of plasticity data used in the models.
characterized as brittle, which leads to a sudden rupture

Figure 12: Load–deflection curve for specimens beams C5 and C6. Figure 15: Load–deflection curve for specimens beams steel
and GFRP.

Figure 13: Strain in top concrete fiber for specimens beams C5 Figure 16: Strain of the bottom bar for specimens beams steel
and C6. and GFRP.
772  Shaysh Aziz Mohammed and AbdulMuttailb I. Said

Figure 17: Cracks’ pattern.

Figure 18: Cracks’ pattern.

 Analysis of concrete beams reinforced by GFRP bars with varying parameters  773

in the bar, unlike the high ductility of steel. Accordingly, In the fourth group, the modeling and analysis process
the results of the analysis were as follows: took place differently from the previous three groups,
A. In this group, it is noted that the effect of changing the where a direct comparison was made between a beam
spacing between stirrups on the load capacity of the reinforced with steel and a beam reinforced with GFRP
beams was not very noticeable. The A1 model failed at to understand the general behavior of the GFRP bar against
a load of 151 kN and the A2 model at 150 kN, though the behavior of steel bar. As expected, the load capacity of
the amount of deflection was slightly less in the A1 the beam reinforced with steel is 30% less than that rein-
model by 2.7% than in the A2 model, with values of 71 forced with GFRP (105 and 151 kN, respectively). Still, the
and 73 mm, respectively (Figure 6). In terms of strains, deflection percentage in the steel model is 83.8% less than
the concrete strain in the compression zone of the A1 the GFRP model (11.5 and 71 mm, respectively), and this
model approached the ultimate by an amount of 0.0029. difference is due to the low modulus of elasticity that
Still, this value decreased by 29% in the A2 model to GFRP possesses compared to steel (Figure 15). In terms of
become 0.0023 (Figure 7). As for the strain values in the strain, both steel and GFRP have reached the ultimate
GFRP bar in the tension region, the strain values were strain. It is noted that the steel strain continues until rupture
close and with a difference in the A2 model from the A1 (Figure 16).
by about 3.25%, with values of 0.0016 and 0.00155, On the other hand, GFRP-reinforced concrete beams
respectively (Figure 8). had substantially larger cracks before the collapse but
B. In the second group, the change in the ultimate load were less ductile than steel-reinforced concrete beams,
capacity was straightforward and relatively more. The which showed fewer cracks as shown in Figures 17 and 18.
effect of changing the compressive strength of con-
crete from 35 to 70 MPa led to an increase in the final
load capacity of the B4 model by 8.4% compared to
the B3 model from 143 to 155 kN. The percentage of 3 Conclusion
deflection in the B4 model also decreased by 15.15%
compared to the B3 model and by an amount of deflec- • Reducing the spacing between the stirrups from the
tion from 76 to 66 mm, respectively, due to the increase design spacing approved for the resistance of the shear
in the compressive strength of concrete (Figure 9). In does not lead to an increase in the ultimate load capa-
the strains, the concrete in the compression zone had city, but it has the effect of increasing the number of
another opinion, where the difference was somewhat cracks and reducing their width.
significant due to the doubled increase in the compressive • Increasing the compressive strength of concrete leads to
strength of the concrete, where the strain rate decreased in an increase in the ultimate load capacity of the beams by
the B4 model by 58% from the B3 model, with strain values up to twice as much from 143 to 155 kN an increase
0.005 and 0.0021, respectively (Figure 10). Regarding the of about 8.4%. In contrast, the percentage of strains
GFRP bar in the tensile region, the rate of change in the decreases in the high compressive strength of concrete.
strain of the two beams was very close, as is the case in • Increasing the number of reinforcing layers does not
the first group, with a difference of 1.9% and with values of lead to an increase in the ultimate load capacity of
0.0016 and 0.00157, respectively (Figure 11). the beams and does not affect the percentage of deflection
C. In the third group, the variables were in the reinfor- at equal reinforcement values. However, the amount of
cing layers. The results were different in the load strain decreases in the beam with two layers of reinforce-
capacity between the two beams, where the load ment in the C6 model by 33.34% from the C5 model.
capacity of the C6 model decreased from the C5 model • The ultimate load capacity of the GFRP beam is higher
by 17.75% by 146 kN for the C5 model and 124 kN for the than that of a beam reinforced with steel, but the
C6 model. Still, the amount of deflection was equal at amount of deflection is higher in GFRP compared to
that point for the two beams and was 73 mm (Figure 12). steel, so the load capacity of the beam reinforced
As for the concrete strain in the compression zone, its with steel is 30% less than that reinforced with GFRP
value decreased in the C6 model by 33.34% from the C5 (105 and 151 kN, respectively). Still, the deflection per-
model with values of 0.0039 and 0.0026, respectively centage in the steel model is 83.8% less than the GFRP
(Figure 13). As for the strain in the bars of the GFRP in model (11.5 and 71 mm, respectively).
the tension zone, it is noted that the strain in the C6 • The number and width of cracks are more significant
model has increased by a simple 3.6% to the C5 model in the beam reinforced by GFRP than in the beam
with values of 0.016 and 0.0166, respectively (Figure 14). reinforced by steel. In general, the serviceability
774  Shaysh Aziz Mohammed and AbdulMuttailb I. Said

represented by cracks and deflection is less in the coated CFRP bars. IOP Conf Series Earth Environ Sci.
beam reinforced by GFRP than the beam reinforced 2021;856:012003. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/856/1/012003.
by steel with higher serviceability. On the other hand, [3] Said AbdulMuttalib I, Abbas OM. Serviceability behavior of
high strength concrete I-beams reinforced with carbon fiber
the results showed the expected behavior of GFRP which
reinforced polymer bars. J Eng. 2013;19(11):1515–30.
is linear elastic to the failure stage. In addition, there is [4] Dybel P, Kucharska M, Rzadzka I. Analysis of flexural strength
no yielding point. of beam elements reinforced with GFRP bars. IOP Conf Series
Mater Sci Eng. 2020;960:032068. doi: 10.1088/1757-899X/
960/3/032068.
[5] Ramachandra Murthy A, Pukazhendhi DM, Vishnuvardhan S,
Funding information: The authors state no funding involved.
Saravanan M, Gandhi P. Performance of concrete beams
reinforced with GFRP bars under monotonic loading.
Author contributions: All authors have accepted respon- Structures. 2020;27:1274–88.
sibility for the entire content of this manuscript and [6] ACI 440.1R-15. Guide for the design and construction of con-
approved its submission. crete reinforced with FRP bars. Farmington Hills (MI), USA:
American Concrete Institute; 2015.
[7] Saraswathy T, Dhanalakshmi K. Investigation of flexural
Conflict of interest: The authors state no conflict of
behaviour of RCC beams using GFRP bars. Int J Sci Eng Res.
interest. 2014;5(1):333–8.
[8] Besseling JF. A theory of elastic, plastic, and creep deforma-
tions of an initially isotropic material showing anisotropic
strain-hardening, creep recovery, and secondary creep. J Appl
References Mech. 1958;25(4):529–36.
[9] Lu Z-H, Zhao Y-G. Empirical stress–strain model for unconfined
high-strength concrete under uniaxial compression. J Mater
[1] Said AbdulMuttalib I, Abbas OM. Evaluation of deflection in Civ Eng. 2010;22(11):1181–6.
high strength concrete (HSC) I-beam reinforced with carbon [10] Malm R. Shear cracks in concrete structures subjected to
fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) bars. The 7th Asia Pacific Young in-plane stresses [dissertation]. Stockholm: Royal Institute
Researchers and Graduates Symposium. Innovations in of Technology (KTH); 2006.
Materials and Structural Engineering Practices; 2018. p. 519–33. [11] Genikomsou AS, Polak MA. Finite element analysis of
[2] Said AbdulMuttalib I, Tu’ma NH. Numerical modeling for flex- punching shear of concrete slabs using damaged plasticity
ural behavior of UHPC beams reinforced with steel and sand- model in ABAQUS. Eng Struct. 2015;98:38–48.