Advances in Engineering Research (AER), volume 72

2016 International Conference on Architectural Engineering and Civil Engineering (AECE-16)

Using ABAQUS Finite Element Analysis to Investigate the Influence of FRP Types
and Reinforcement Ratio on Flexural Capacity of Beams Reinforced with FRP Rod

Aboubieda Alamin Ahmed Almansoor Jianwei TU

Hubei Key Laboratory of Roadway Bridge and Structure Hubei Key Laboratory of Roadway Bridge and Structure
Engineering, Wuhan University of Technology Engineering, Wuhan University of Technology
Wuhan, 430070, China Wuhan, 430070, China
E-mail: abuo_ahmed2001@[Link] E-mail: Waider1@[Link]

Abstract-GFRP bars are non corrosion materials, their tensile The developed of finite element with computer
modulus relatively are lower compared with steel technology, get a large knowledge and improved of finite-
reinforcement. A total of six beam specimens (BG1~BG3 and element analysis using the software.
BC1~BC3) were simulated to failure by concrete crushed ABAQUS finite-element software is one of the large
under four-point bending. The main parameters studies were common finite-element analysis software useing in
FRP reinforcement’s types (GFRP and CFRP) bars and scientific research field and engineering applications. That
amounts of reinforcement ratios. To compare the influence of is because, not only has a fast calculation of numerical
these parameters on the flexural behavior of FRPs concrete analysis results, high precision and low cost advantage, but
beams, ABAQUS Finite-element software was used. The
also has more humanized interface and visual results,
results showed that; with increasing of reinforcement ratio,
bearing capacities for all beams were increased. All of GFRP
specialized in non-linear analysis of reinforced concrete
specimens have a larger mid span deflection than CFRP beams.
structure field, which can get more accurate results[9].
In all FRP specimens, mid span deflection were decreased with The purpose of this study is to investigate the affect of
increased as the reinforcement ratio, this decreased is larger in reinforcement ratio and FRP types on the ultimate capacity
GFRP bars than that in CFRP specimens. and mid span deflection by using ABAQUS finite element
software.
Keywords-ABAQUS; finite element analysis; FRP bars;
concrete crushing failure II. THE BEAM MODEL
Three GFRP specimens and three specimens of CFRP
I. INTRODUCTION RC beams were simulated. The beam specimen was
designated as BG# and BC#. B stands for beam; # is the
Corrosion of steel bars in aggressive environments can specimen number; while G and C are referred to GFRP and
cause considerable damage in reinforced concrete[1], and is CFRP rebar, respectively. The beams were 150mm
caused by chloride's ions[2],Chlorides and carbonation[3]. wide,250mm high, 2550mm long, with the distance between
Fiber-reinforced polymers(FRP) bars are non-corrosive the end-supports being 2300mm . All beams were tested
materials[4]used instead of the steel bars to prevent the under four-points loading. The shear span was 767 mm (one
drawbacks related to steel reinforcement[5]and enhance the third of the beam span). Steel stirrups reinforcement were
reinforced concrete structures to corrosion resistance. used at the shear span to avoid the shear failure, while the
Generally, FRP consists of synthetic or organic high- mid span was left free of stirrups. Nominal 6mm GFRP or
strength fibers in a resin matrix and mostly divided into CFRP were used at the top with in the shear span to hold the
three common types used in civil engineering application's stirrups. 25mm was used as the concrete cover in all of
fields. Those are Carbon fiber (CFRP), Aramid fiber (AFRP) specimens. The geometric and reinforcement details of this
and Glass fiber (GFRP)[6]. analytical beams test are shown in Fig. 1 and table 1, while
FRP bars have a different mechanical property than steel Table 2 and 3 showed the material properties of bars FRP
bars; involve a high-tensile strength combination with low and concrete respectively.
elastic modulus and elastic brittle stress-strain relationship.
Because of their linear elastic brittle behavior, the flexural
exhibits no ductility[7].
Abdul Rahman et al. [8] Presents the performance of
concrete beams reinforced with different types of Glass
fiber reinforced polymer section. From their research, it was
made a comparison with a control beam on the aspect of
load-deflection behavior, ultimate load, mode of failure and Figure1. Geometric and reinforcement details of the beam model
load reinforced strain behavior. Their experimental results
showed that the beams reinforced with GFRP sections
estimated lower stiffness, lower load carrying capacity,
fewer numbers of cracks and large deflection.

Copyright © 2017, the Authors. Published by Atlantis Press. 647

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC license ([Link]
 Advances in Engineering Research (AER), volume 72

TABLE I. TABLE REINFORCEMENT DETAILS OF FRP TABLE III. TABLE CONCRETE PROPERTIES[10]
Specimens Tensile rebars Reinforcement ratios
f cu d (Mpa) f c e (Mpa) ft f (Mpa) Ec g (Mpa) vc h
BG1 2 9.53 0.00432
BG2 212.7 0.00772 14.3 1.43 30000 0.2
C j 30
BG3 419.05 0.03910
BC1 3 6.35 0.00286
d. Concrete strength. e. Concrete compression strength. f. Concrete tensile
BC2 3 9.53 0.00648 strength. g. Elastic modulus of concrete. h. Concrete poison’s ratio.
BC3 312.7 0.000600
IV. ANALYTICAL RESULTS
III. METHODOLOGY
A. Concrete Crushing and FRP Rupture
All of the beams were simulated under four-points Theoretically, reinforced concrete beams can be
loading Fig. 2. The load was applied, firstly, by a 50kN on designed for tension, balanced or compression failure mode
each of Blocks point by mean of (P/2=25kN), then the load
for required ultimate bending moment. Traditionally,
was increased at rate of 10kN/time and after each times, concrete beams with steel reinforcement are designed for
maximum load was measured according to the applied load. tension failure to take advantage of elastic plastic behavior
In ABAQUS finite element software, the load should be of steel. Unlike steel, GFRP reinforcement has a linear
applied by mean of the vertical displacement (U2-m; where stress-strain behavior until to failure. In case of concrete
2 refer to y direction) instead of concentrated load (P-kN),
and the displacements (deflections) were obtained directly crushing failure mode,  c =  cu =0.0035(where;  c is
according to this value of the Load. That is because of; the compression concrete strain,  cu is ultimate concrete strain)
result does not convergence when we applied load directly
by means of concentrated load (P-kN). Two elements were Fig. 5. But for the case of GFRP tensile rupture  f =  fu
putted on the beam mid-span location; one at the beam top
to measuring the concrete compressive stress-strain and the and  c =0.0035 (where; f is GFRP bars tensile strain,
other one putted on the tensile reinforcement bars to  fu is GFRP bars ultimate tensile strain) Fig. 3. In Fig. 4
measuring the stress-strain of FRP rebar. After each time of
loading, the strain and stress values for both of compressive can be observed that; FRP bars were reached the ultimate
concrete and tensile bar were measured until failure tensile stress (1250Mpa) in the tensile region, while in the
occurred; either by rupture of bars or crushing of concrete compression region, the stress of FRP bars is much smaller
Fig. 3 and 5. than tensile region, because of FRP bars were bearing by
small force in this place, so there is small stress. The
TABLE II. TABLE TENSILE PROPERTIES OF FRP REBAR concrete should failed when the compressive strength
(C30=14.3Mpa) reached its maximum compressive stress
Rebar type
 a (mm) E f b (Mpa) f fu c (Mpa) (13.2~15.85 Mpa) Fig. 6, it also can observed; the
BG1 9.53 40800 760 maximum Misses stress value between 13.21 to 15.85Mpa
GFRP in compression zone, while the minimum Misses stress
BG2 12.7 40800 690 achieved in the tension zone is around 1.338 Mpa, indicated
BG3 19.05 40800 620 that; this regions were bearing by small force, so it have a
smaller stress than compression zone.
BC1 6.35 119750 1250
CFRP
BC2 9.53 122750 1000
BC3 12.7 111750 900

a. Diameter bar. b. FRP elastic modulus. c. FRP tensile stress.

Figure 3. FRP stress-strain curve (BC1) specimen

Figure 2. Finite element model for concrete and FRP reinforcement

648
 Advances in Engineering Research (AER), volume 72

Figure 4. FRP F.E failure mode (BC1) specimen

Figure 5. Concrete stress-strain curve (BC2) specimen

Figure 6. Concrete F.E failure mode (BC2) specimen

the lower reinforcement ratio. It can also be observed that;

B. Affect of Reinforcement Ratio to Bearing Capacity the deflections at mid span in concrete beams with GFRP in
Fig. 7 and 8 show the analysis results of Load-deflection all of specimens are larger than that in CFRP specimens at
response at mid span for BC and BG specimens respectively. the same load. This indicates that for the same area of
From these figures, it is clear that; the results of the two reinforcement, GFRP bars have a different behavior than
replicate beams within each series are rather identical. The CFRP. Increasing of deflection in GFRP bars compared
loads to mid span deflection curves were bilinear for all with CFRP at the same load also indicates to the low
beam specimens. The first part of these curves up to crack stiffness of the member and vice versa. Stiffness is
represents the behavior of un-cracked beams. When the calculated as load per unit deflection. Increased the
cracking load is achieved, a drop in the slope is observed deflection in GFRP bars compared with CFRP bars also
with reduced of stiffness. Finally, the cracking process may be because of the low elastic modulus of GFRP bars,
stabiles and almost linear segment is observed until failure. this result is a similar conclusion has been introduced by
The reinforcement ratios had an effective on the stiffness of Ilker and Ashour.[11]. At 50 kN load, the mid span
the beam specimens and, therefore, on their load-deflection deflections were 70, 40, and 10 mm for specimens BG1,
behavior. As expected, larger deformations are obtained for BG2, and BG3, respectively (see Fig. 8), could be revealed

649
 Advances in Engineering Research (AER), volume 72

that increasing the reinforcement ratio from 0.00432 to

0.0391. However, increases the ultimate capacity from 53
kN to 78kN led to decreased of mid span deflection from 70
to 10 mm, while at the same load (50kN), the mid span
deflections were 35, 15, and 10 mm for specimens BC1,
BC2, and BC3, respectively (see Fig. 7), could be revealed
that increases the reinforcement ratio from 0.00286 to
0.0116, led to increases the ultimate capacity from 60 kN to
80 kN and decreased of mid span deflection from 35 to 10
mm.

Figure 9. Load-deflection (BG1, BC1) specimens

V. CONCLUSION
 The load-deflection curves were bilinear for all of
specimens and is divided in to three parts; the first
part up to cracking represents the behavior of un-
cracked beam, the second part represents the
behavior of the beam's cracked with reduced of
stiffness, while the third part, which is come down
Figure 7. Load-deflection (BC) was represents to failure of specimen.
 Increasing the reinforcement ratio from 0.00432 to
0.0391 for series BG (Fig. 8), tends to increase the
ultimate capacity from 53kN to 78 kN respectively,
while increases the reinforcement ratio from
0.00286to 0.0116, however, tends to increase the
ultimate capacity from 60kN to 80 kN respectively
Fig. 7).
 The deflections at mid span in all of concrete beams
reinforced with GFRP are larger than that in CFRP
specimens at the same load. Indicated that to the
low elastic modulus of GFRP bars compared with
CFRP and low stiffness of GFRP member than that
in CFRP.
 Beams reinforced with GFRP bars exhibit a
Figure 8. Load- deflection (BG) significant reduction in stiffness after the initiation
of the first crack in comparison with CFRP
C. Effect of FRP Types reinforcement with the same reinforcement ratios
(see Fig. 9).
Fig. 9 represents the load-deflection relationships of FRP  All of the beams were failed by concrete crushing at
reinforcement with different types of FRP bars (BG1 and compression zone except (BC1) specimen (Fig. 4)
BC1) specimens. From this figure can observe that; the which was failed due to the rupture of FRP
beams reinforced with GFRP bars (BG1) exhibit a significant reinforcement .This is not recommended because it
reduction in stiffness after the initiation of first crack in may results in catastrophic failure of the structures.
comparison with CFRP (BC1) reinforcement. This behavior
is attributed to the low elastic modulus of GFRP bars ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
compare with CFRP bars, which affects to the ability of A. Almansoor gratefully acknowledges the Chinese
GFRP bars to control concrete cracks, lead to a decreased
Scholarship Council (CSC) for funding this PhD research.
effective moment of inertia and hence large deflections.
Also he would like to thank Wuhan University of
Technology for providing a lot of information's facilities to
conduct this article.
REFERENCES
[1] [Link], L. Torres, A. Turon, M. Baena, and A. Catalan, "An
experimental study of the flexural behaviour of GFRP RC beams and

650
 Advances in Engineering Research (AER), volume 72

comparison with prediction models," Composite Structures, vol. 91, [6] B. Benmokrane, O. Chaallal, and R. Masmoudi, "Glass fibre
pp. 286-295, 2009. reinforced plastic (GFRP) rebars for concrete structures,"
[2] M. A. Adam, M. Said, A. A. Mahmoud, and A. S. Shanour, Construction and Building Materials, vol. 9, pp. 353-364, 1995.
"Analytical and experimental flexural behavior of concrete beams [7] M. S. Issa, I. M. Metwally, and S. M. Elzeiny, "Influence of fibers on
reinforced with glass fiber reinforced polymers bars," Construction flexural behavior and ductility of concrete beams reinforced with
and Building Materials, vol. 84, pp. 354-366, 2015. GFRP rebars," Engineering Structures, vol. 33, pp. 1754-1763, 2011.
[3] G. Nkurunziza, A. Debaiky, P. Cousin, and B. Benmokrane, [8] A. R. M. Sam, S. A. Hassan, and T. S. Thye, "Glass Fibre Reinforce
"Durabilityof GFRP bars: a critical review of the literature," Progress Polymer Structural Selection as Concrete Beam Reinforcement,"
in structural engineering and materials, vol. 7, pp. 194-209, 2005. Malaysian Journal of Civil Engineering, vol. 15, pp. 16-23, 2003.
[4] I. Chitsazan, M. Kobraei, M. Z. Jumaat, and P. Shafigh, [9] S. Deng, Z. Qie, and L. Wang, "Nonlinear Analysis of Reinforced
"Anexperimental study on the flexural behavior of FRP RC beams Concrete Beam Bending Failure Experimentation Based on
and a comparison of the ultimate moment capacity with ACI," Journal ABAQUS," in First International Conference on Information
[5] S. H. Alsayed, "Flexural behaviour of concrete beams reinforced with Sciences, Machinery, Materials and Energy, 2015.[In Chinese]
GFRP bars," Cement and Concrete Composites, vol. 20, pp. 1-11, [10] G., "Code for design of concrete structures [S]," 2010. [In Chinese]
1998. [11] I. F. Kara and A. F. Ashour, "Flexural performance of FRP reinforced
concrete beams," Composite Structures, vol. 94, pp. 1616-1625, 2012.

651