TESTING OF FULL-SIZE

REINFORCED CONCRETE BEAMS

STRENGTHENED WITH FRP COMPOSITES:
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND
DESIGN METHODS VERIFICATION
Final Report
SPR 387

Oregon Department of Transportation

TESTING OF FULL-SIZE

REINFORCED CONCRETE BEAMS

STRENGTHENED WITH FRP COMPOSITES:

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND

DESIGN METHODS VERIFICATION

Final Report

SPR 387

by

Damian I. Kachlakev, PhD and David D. McCurry, Jr.

Oregon State University

Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering

202 Apperson Hall

Corvallis, Oregon 97331

for

Oregon Department of Transportation

Research Group

200 Hawthorne SE, Suite B-240

Salem, OR 97301-5192

and

Federal Highway Administration

400 Seventh Street SW

Washington, DC 20590

June 2000

1. Report No.

2. Government Accession No.

3. Recipients Catalog No.

FHWA-OR-RD-00-19
5. Report Date

4. Title and Subtitle

Testing of Full-Size Reinforced Concrete Beams Strengthened with FRP

Composites: Experimental Results and Design Methods Verification

June 2000
6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s)

8. Performing Organization Report No.

Damian I. Kachlakev, PhD and David D. McCurry, Jr.

Oregon State University
Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering
202 Apperson Hall
Corvallis, Oregon 97331
9. Performing Organization Name and Address

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

Oregon Department of Transportation

Research Group
200 Hawthorne SE, Suite B-240
Salem, Oregon 97301-5192

11. Contract or Grant No.

SPR 387.11

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Oregon Department of Transportation

Research Group
and
200 Hawthorne SE, Suite B-240
Salem, Oregon 97301-5192

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Federal Highway Administration

400 Seventh Street SW
Washington, D.C. 20590

Final Report
14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

16. Abstract

In 1997, a load rating of an historic reinforced concrete bridge in Oregon, Horsetail Creek Bridge, indicated
substandard shear and moment capacities of the beams. As a result, the Bridge was strengthened with fiber reinforced
polymer composites as a means of increasing load-carrying capacity while maintaining the historic appearance.
Because composites were a relatively new construction material in infrastructure projects, subsequent tests were
conducted to verify the design used on the Bridge. Four full-size beams were constructed to match the dimensions
and strength capacity of the Bridge crossbeams as closely as possible. One of these beams was used as the control,
while the other three beams were strengthened with various composite configurations including the same
configuration used on the Bridge crossbeams. The beams were loaded in third point bending to determine their
capacity. The beam strengthened with the same composite design used on the Bridge could not be broken with
loading equipment used. Based on the maximum loads applied, the Bridge beams have at least a 50% increase in
shear and a 99% increase in moment capacity over the unstrengthened condition. Design calculations show the
Bridge beams now exceed the required shear and moment capacities.

17. Key Words

18. Distribution Statement

composite, fiber reinforced polymer, FRP, reinforced concrete,

strengthening, bridge, design
19. Security Classification (of this report)

unclassified

20. Security Classification (of this page)

unclassified

Copies available from NTIS

21. No. of Pages

22. Price

36 + Appendices

Technical Report Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72)

Reproduction of completed page authorized

Miles

square inches

square feet

square yards

Acres

square miles

fluid ounces

gallons

mi

in2

ft2

yd2

ac

mi2

fl oz

gal

cubic yards

0.765

0.028

3.785

29.57

VOLUME

2.59

0.405

0.836

0.093

645.2

AREA

1.61

0.914

0.305

25.4

LENGTH

Multiply By

meters cubed

meters cubed

liters

milliliters

kilometers squared

hectares

meters squared

meters squared

millimeters squared

kilometers

meters

meters

28.35
0.907

0.454

grams
megagrams

kilograms

5(F-32)/9

Celsius temperature

* SI is the symbol for the International System of Measurement

Fahrenheit
temperature

short tons (2000 lb)

pounds

lb

TEMPERATURE (exact)

ounces

oz

MASS

To Find

millimeters

NOTE: Volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m .

yd3

cubic feet

Yards

yd

ft

Feet

Ft

Inches

When You Know

In

Symbol

Symbol

Mg

kg

m3

mL

km2

ha

m2

m2

mm2

km

mm

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS

ii

1.102

2.205

0.035

MASS

1.308

35.315

0.264

0.034

VOLUME

0.386

2.47

10.764

0.0016

AREA

0.621

1.09

3.28

0.039

LENGTH

Multiply By

1.8 + 32

To Find

short tons (2000 lb)

pounds

ounces

cubic yards

cubic feet

gallons

fluid ounces

square miles

acres

square feet

square inches

miles

yards

feet

inches

Fahrenheit

TEMPERATURE (exact)
Celsius temperature

megagrams

kilograms

kg
Mg

grams

meters cubed

meters cubed

liters

milliliters

mL

hectares
kilometers squared

ha

meters squared

millimeters squared

kilometers

meters

meters

millimeters

When You Know

km2

m2

mm2

km

mm

Symbol

(4-7-94 jbp)

lb

oz

yd3

ft3

gal

fl oz

mi2

ac

ft2

in2

mi

yd

ft

in

Symbol

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS

SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to express special appreciation to Dr. Solomon Yim and Dr. Thomas Miller,
professors at the Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering Department at the Oregon
State University for their valuable suggestions and help during this study. We would like to
thank Mr. Andy Brickman and Professor John Peterson, both from the Civil, Construction and
Environmental Engineering Department at the Oregon State University for their time and great
help on conducting the experiments during this study.
The authors wish to extend special gratitude to Mr. Marty Laylor, Mr. Steven Soltesz, Project
Managers, and Dr. Barnie Jones, Research Manager at the Research Unit of the Oregon
Department of Transportation, Salem, Oregon for their valuable suggestions and many
contributions to this project.
The authors would like to thank Mr. Ed Fyfe from Fyfe Corporation, LLC for donation of the
FRP composites used in this project. Special appreciation goes to Mr. John Seim, Blue Road
Research, Oregon for providing the necessary equipment and conducting the fiber optics
measurements during the experimental part of this study. In addition, we would like to thank
Contech Services, Specialty Restoration Contractors from Vancouver, Washington for their help
of preparing the specimens for FRP application.
In addition, we would like to thank the following graduate students from the Civil, Construction
and Environmental Engineering Department at the Oregon State University, without whose help
this study would have being an enormous challenge: Bryan Green, William Barnes, Tae-Woo
Kim, Tanarat Potisuk, Dharadon Seamanontaprinya, and Kasidit Chansawat.
Finally, we would like to extend our appreciation to Professor Chris A. Bell, Associate Dean of
the College of Engineering at the Oregon State University for his support and interest in our
work.

DISCLAIMER
This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Oregon Department of
Transportation and the United States Department of Transportation in the interest of information
exchange. The State of Oregon and the United States Government assume no liability of its
contents or use thereof.
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and
accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official policies
of the Oregon Department of Transportation or the United States Department of Transportation.
The State of Oregon and the United States Government do not endorse products of
manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers names appear herein only because they are
considered essential to the object of this document.
This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation
iii

TESTING OF FULL-SIZE REINFORCED CONCRETE BEAMS

STRENGTHENED WITH FRP COMPOSITES:

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DESIGN METHODS VERIFICATION

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESEARCH ............................................................................ 1

1.2 HORSETAIL CREEK BRIDGE......................................................................................... 1

1.3 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY .............................................................................................. 3

2.0 TEST SETUP......................................................................................................................... 5

2.1 BEAM CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTIES ............................................................... 5

2.1.1 Concrete Modulus Determination ............................................................................... 8

2.2 TESTING AND DATA COLLECTION ............................................................................ 8

2.2.1 Beam Loading ............................................................................................................. 8

2.2.2 Data Collection............................................................................................................ 8

3.0 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS ........................................................................................... 11

3.1 SUMMARY OF LOAD AND DEFLECTION................................................................. 11

3.2 STRAIN DATA ................................................................................................................ 15

4.0 INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION OF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS............ 17

4.1 GAINS OVER THE CONTROL BEAM.......................................................................... 17

4.2 MEETING THE TRUCK TRAFFIC LOADS.................................................................. 19

4.2.1 Moment Demand....................................................................................................... 19

4.2.2 Shear Demand ........................................................................................................... 20

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................ 23

5.1 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................... 23

5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................. 24

6.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 25

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: BRIDGE DRAWINGS AND PHOTOS

APPENDIX B: EXPERIMENTAL DATA

APPENDIX C: CALCULATIONS FOR LOAD RATING AND DESIGN OF

EXPERIMENTAL BEAMS
APPENDIX D: EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS
APPENDIX E: DESIGN CALCULATIONS FOR FRP RETROFITTED REINFORCED
CONCRETE MEMBERS

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Steel reinforcement details ....................................................................................................................... 6

Table 2.2: Experimental beam description1 .............................................................................................................. 6

Table 2.3: Design material properties ....................................................................................................................... 7

Table 2.4: Elastic modulus results from pulse velocity correlation1 ....................................................................... 8

Table 3.1: Beam failure modes................................................................................................................................. 11

Table 3.2: Summary of load and deflection ............................................................................................................ 12

Table 4.1: Comparison of the strengthened beams to the Control Beam............................................................. 18

Table 4.2: Calculations from load rating (LRFD).................................................................................................. 20

Table 4.3: Capacities of the full-size beams and the Horsetail Creek Bridge crossbeams. The values shown

for the full-size beams are measured values. The values for Horsetail Creek Bridge are calculated
values........................................................................................................................................................ 21

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Horsetail Creek Bridge (1998, prior to retrofit) ................................................................................... 2

Figure 1.2: Elevation of Horsetail Creek Bridge (No. 04543).................................................................................. 2

Figure 2.1: Position of steel reinforcement in all beams. Dimensions and rebar sizes are in mm........................ 5

Figure 2.2: FRP-strengthened experimental beams. The flexural and shear FRP composites were wrapped

continuously around the bottom of the beam. All dimensions in mm................................................ 7

Figure 2.3: DCDT locations. Dimensions in mm. .................................................................................................... 9

Figure 2.4: Typical locations of resistance strain gauges. Dimensions in mm. ..................................................... 9

Figure 2.5: Locations of fiber optic strain gauges. Dimensions in mm................................................................ 10

Figure 3.1: Load vs. deflection for the Control Beam............................................................................................ 13

Figure 3.2: Load vs. deflection for the Flexure-Only Beam .................................................................................. 13

Figure 3.3: Load vs. deflection for the Shear-Only Beam ..................................................................................... 14

Figure 3.4: Load vs. deflection for the S&F Beam (beam did not fail)................................................................. 14

Figure 3.5: Control Beam load vs. strain at midspan ............................................................................................ 15

Figure 3.6: F-Only Beam load vs. strain at midspan.............................................................................................. 15

Figure 3.7: S-Only Beam load vs. strain at midspan.............................................................................................. 16

Figure 3.8: S&F Beam load vs. strain at midspan.................................................................................................. 16

Figure 4.1: Load-deflection comparison of all experimental beams..................................................................... 18

vi

1.0
1.1

INTRODUCTION

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESEARCH

Nearly 40 percent of the bridges in the United States and Canada are structurally deficient
(Cooper 1991, FHWA 1993, Rizkalla & Labossiere 1999, FHWA 2000). Structural elements
composed of concrete and reinforcing steel are frequently rated as inadequate due to load
conditions beyond the capacity of the original designs. In addition, degradation such as
corrosion and fatigue has reduced the capacity of many structures. External post-tensioning,
addition of steel plating and total replacement have been the traditional methods used to meet the
need for increased load capacity.
In recent years, fiber reinforced polymers (FRP) have been used to increase the capacity of
reinforced concrete structural elements. Fiber reinforced polymers are typically comprised of
high strength fibers (e.g. aramid, carbon, glass) impregnated with an epoxy, polyester, or vinyl
ester resin (often termed the matrix). As this study showed, the addition of these materials can
dramatically change the load capacity as well as the failure mechanism of reinforced concrete
beams.
Experimental studies have been conducted using FRP reinforcing on both beams and columns.
Field application of FRP is common, but a complete understanding of the behavior of reinforced
concrete (RC) beams retrofitted with FRP is still lacking. This study investigated the bending
behavior by way of strain and deflection of full-size beams in more detail than any previously
known study.

1.2

HORSETAIL CREEK BRIDGE

The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) is currently undertaking an ongoing effort to

load rate all state and local agency owned bridges. Bridge evaluation is required by the Federal
Highway Administration, which partially funds state and local bridge construction projects.
The load rating process involves careful inspection and rating of each structural element in a
bridge according to prescribed methods. The lowest rated bridge member determines the rating
for the bridge. If the bridge is determined deficient, the bridge owner is required to either
retrofit, replace, or post the bridge.
Horsetail Creek Bridge, shown in Figures 1.1 and 1.2, is located east of Portland, Oregon along
the Historic Columbia River Highway. It was designed and constructed by K.S. Billner and
opened to traffic in 1914. The structure is an 18.3 m (60 ft) long simple 3-span reinforced
concrete slab-beam-column structure. The length and width of each span is 6.1 m (20 ft). A
photograph of the original bridge is shown in Appendix A.

The Horsetail Creek Bridge beams were constructed without shear reinforcement (required by
current standards and knowledge of RC beam behavior). Shear reinforcement inhibits the
development of diagonal tension cracks (shear cracks). Once formed, these cracks can propagate
quickly and result in a sudden failure before full flexural capacity of the beam is achieved. For
this reason, a minimal amount of reinforcement (usually steel stirrups) must be provided (ACI
318-99). Adequate spacing in high shear regions enables the reinforcement to effectively
mitigate diagonal tension cracking.
Load rating of Horsetail Creek Bridge identified flexural and shear Rating Factors of RF = 0.5
and RF = 0.06, respectively (CH2M HILL, 1997). An RF value less than 1 indicates a deficient
structure. The exceptionally low rating factor for shear was due to the lack of shear stirrups,
which required the load-rating engineer to use only the concrete section to resist the induced
shear forces. The details of the load rating, including selected calculations, are presented in
Appendix B. It should be noted that visual inspection revealed minimal signs of distress or
environmental degradation. Only a few locations of exposed steel under the bridge railing and
curb were visible.

Figure 1.1: Horsetail Creek Bridge (1998, prior to retrofit)

Figure 1.2: Elevation of Horsetail Creek Bridge (No. 04543)

As a consequence of the load rating, the Bridge was strengthened to an HS20 truck loading
capacity using glass and carbon FRP. Of the strengthening options considered, FRP provided the
required strength improvement and maintained the historic appearance of the Bridge.

1.3

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

This study examined the increased load capacity as the result of FRP added to inadequate RC
beams. In addition, this study investigated the bending behavior of reinforced concrete beams
retrofitted with FRP by examining deflection and strain as a function of load. Laboratory testing
was conducted on full-size beams that closely represented the Horsetail Creek Bridge beams in
order to accomplish the following:
To verify that the retrofit scheme used to strengthen the Horsetail Creek Bridge was
sufficient for the traffic loads; and
To provide experimental data to validate finite element models being developed in another
research project.
A secondary objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of a fiber optic strain sensing system for
monitoring strain in FRP strengthened beams. Under a separate study, fiber optic strain sensors
were installed on Horsetail Creek Bridge to monitor static, dynamic and long-term load response.
This project was part of a continuing effort to use fiber optic sensors for structural health
monitoring.

2.0
2.1

TEST SETUP

BEAM CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTIES

Four full-scale beams with similar geometry and rebar placement as the Horsetail Creek Bridge
crossbeams were constructed in the Oregon State University laboratories. Figure 2.1 shows the
beam dimensions and the location of the rebar. There were three main flexural steel bars
extending the full length and two bars that bent up to reinforce negative moment regions of the
beam. Smaller diameter bars were positioned near the compression face of the beam.
#16 Steel rebar

2134
B

508
B

64

305
6096
#19 Steel rebar

#22 Main Tension Steel

305

305
2 #19 & 1 #16
Steel rebar
64

2 #16 Steel
rebar

1 #16 Steel
rebar

768

768

508

508

64

64
3 #22 Steel
rebar

3 #22 &
2 #19 Steel rebar

SECTION A-A

SECTION B-B

Figure 2.1: Position of steel reinforcement in all beams. Dimensions and rebar sizes are in mm.

The beams were designed to match the strength rather than the serviceability of the Horsetail
Creek Bridge beams. For load rating purposes, AASHTO specifies the concrete strength of a
bridge constructed before 1959 to be 2500 psi (17.2 MPa) and the steel yield stress to be 33,000
psi (228 MPa) (AASHTO, 1994). Concrete and steel are not readily available at these low
strength levels. In an effort to construct beams with similar ultimate strength as the Horsetail
Creek Bridge beams, reinforcement bars with smaller cross-sectional areas, Table 2.1, were used
to account for the higher yield strength of todays steel. Design calculations for the beams are
provided in Appendix B.
Table 2.1: Steel reinforcement details
Standard
Metric Bar
Steel Area
Bar Size
Size
0.31 in2
#5
#16
(200 mm2)
0.44 in2
#6
#19
(280 mm2)
0.60 in2
#7
#22
(390 mm2)

Location of Reinforcement
Straight and bent steel above elastic neutral axis.
Derived from bridge deck reinforcement
Bent reinforcement used for positive and negative
moment reinforcement.
Straight positive moment reinforcement bars present in
all bridge beams.

The four beams were cast and cured separately under similar conditions. Type I ready-mix
concrete with nominal 28-day strength of 3000 psi (20.7 MPa) and 6 in (152 mm) slump was
used. The beams were cast in the same form to ensure the dimensions were as similar as
possible. Each beam was cured in a moist condition until removed from the form 7-14 days after
pouring. Ambient conditions during casting and curing did not vary significantly from beam to
beam.
After curing, three of the four full-size beams were strengthened with FRP. A description of
each beam is given in Table 2.2, and the FRP configurations are shown in Figure 2.2. The
Control, Flexure-Only, Shear-Only, and Shear and Flexure beams will be referred to as the
Control Beam, F-Only Beam, S-Only Beam, and S&F Beam in this report. Table 2.3 shows the
material properties used for analysis, which are based on established design values.
Table 2.2: Experimental beam description1
Beam

Description

Control
Flexure-only
Shear-only
Shear & Flexure

Reinforced concrete beam with no shear stirrups and no FRP reinforcement

Control beam with added flexural carbon FRP reinforcement
Control beam with added shear glass FRP reinforcement
Control beam with added shear and flexural reinforcement

See also Figure 2.2.

768

Fl exur e-only

Beam

6096
1524

2 layers
Unidirectional CFRP
(3 layers)

762
203

1 layer

(a)
CL
152
768

Sh ear -on ly

Beam

6096
1676

4 layers

Unidirectional
GFRP (2 layers)

152

(b)
CL
152
768

Sh ear & Fl exur e Beam

6096
1676
152

Unidirectional CFRP
under GFRP (see F-only)

Unidirectional
GFRP (see S-only)

(c)
Figure 2.2: FRP-strengthened experimental beams. The flexural and shear FRP composites were wrapped
continuously around the bottom of the beam. All dimensions in mm.
Table 2.3: Design material properties
Material
Concrete
(Compression)
Steel
Reinforcement
Glass FRP
Carbon FRP
1

Limiting Stress
3000 psi
(20.7 MPa )
60 ksi
(414 MPa)
60 ksi
(414 MPa)
110 ksi
(760 MPa)

Limiting Strain

Limit State

0.003

Crushing

0.002

Yielding

0.02

Rupture

0.012

Rupture

1/2

Design elastic modulus from Ec=57,000(fc) .

Elastic Modulus
3120 ksi1
(21.5 GPa)
29,000
(200 GPa)
3000 ksi
(20.7 GPa)
9000 ksi
(62 GPa)

2.1.1 Concrete Modulus Determination

Efforts were made to accurately determine the actual elastic moduli of the beams so that a correct
estimation of beam stiffness could be made. A correlation was made between pulse velocity and
compressive elastic modulus (ASTM 1983, 1994). From this work, it was determined that each
beam possessed a slightly different elastic modulus, as shown in Table 2.4. The elastic moduli
calculated from cylinder strengths were too high in comparison to the elastic moduli determined
from design 28-day strength and the pulse velocity measurements.
Table 2.4: Elastic modulus results from pulse velocity correlation1
Average Measured Pulse
Beam
Velocity (km/s)

Control

3.72

Flexure-only

3.53

Shear-only

3.60

Shear & Flexure

3.48

Elastic Modulus from

Correlation
2,810,000 psi
(19.3 GPa)
2,550,000 psi
(17.6 GPa)
2,63,000 psi
(18.2 GPa)
2,480,000 psi
(17.1 GPa)

Correlation between ASTM C 469 and ASTM C 597 was conducted.

2.2

TESTING AND DATA COLLECTION

Details about data acquisition and the equipment used are found in Appendices C & D. A
summary of the testing and data acquisition methods is presented below.

2.2.1 Beam Loading

All beams were tested in third-point bending as shown in Figure 2.3. No restraint was provided
against rotation along any axis. Supports did not provide any fixity aside from friction due to
normal forces. Thus, the beams could be analyzed as simply-supported beams. All beams
spanned 18 ft (5.49 m) with a shear-span of 6 ft (1.83 m).
A 600 kip (2670 kN), internal-frame, hydraulic press with a load cell was used to load the beams.
This machine was designed to compress test specimens by transferring all forces into its own
frame. For beams that spanned beyond the frame of the machine (the situation for the beams in
this project), the maximum applied force was limited to 160 kip (712 kN). This constraint was
not known until after the project was initiated.

2.2.2 Data Collection

Deflection data were collected from three locations using direct current displacement transducers
(DCDTs) as shown in Figure 2.3. A dial gauge was placed in the same longitudinal location as
DCDT 2 to verify midspan deflection.

2134

3048

1219

305

DCDT 1

DCDT 2

DCDT 3

Figure 2.3: DCDT locations. Dimensions in mm.

Resistance strain gauges with a 2.36 in (60 mm) gauge length were placed at select sites
throughout the beam. Strain data were collected at the midspan section and two sections in the
shear zone as shown in Figure 2.4. Other important strains were collected as needed. Gauges
were placed on the concrete surface, on the FRP surface, or inside the beam on the steel. Fiber
optic gauges were installed only on the three FRP-reinforced beams in the positions shown in
Figure 2.5. The fiber optic gauges were monitored by Blue Road Research1 during the tests.
In order to ensure data collection systems were properly responding to applied loads, three cycles
up to 15 kip (67 kN) were made. The load cycling helped to identify noisy and inadequate data
collection channels in addition to providing more data for finite element models being developed
under a separate project.

2134

3048

384
= Horizontally oriented strain gauge

1067
1500

Figure 2.4: Typical locations of resistance strain gauges. Dimensions in mm.

2555 NE 205th Avenue, Fairview, Oregon 97024. See: www.bluerr.com

610

768

Typical FRP Reinforced Beam

Beam Bottom

Beam End

Typical Shear Gauge (on beam side)

6096
Typical Flexure Gauge (on beam bottom, 3 total)

Figure 2.5: Locations of fiber optic strain gauges. Dimensions in mm.

Cracking was documented during the testing. Only the Control Beam and to a lesser degree, the
F-Only Beam, provided a good map of the cracks because the S-Only and S&F Beams were
wrapped with FRP laminates on the sides. Appendix C gives a complete description of visible
cracking patterns. For this experimental study, crack widths were not measured.

10

3.0
3.1

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

SUMMARY OF LOAD AND DEFLECTION

The Control, F-Only and S-Only beams were loaded to failure. The failure modes are shown in
Table 3.1. The S&F Beam was loaded to 160 kip (712 kN), the capacity of the testing
equipment, and held for several minutes without failing. The S&F Beam was reloaded to 160 kip
(712 kN) with the load points positioned 2 ft (51 mm) apart to increase the applied moment and
again held at this load for several minutes. There was no indication of imminent failure.
Table 3.1: Beam failure modes
Beam
Control
Flexure-only
Shear-only
Shear & Flexure

Failure Mode
Diagonal tension crack (shear failure)
Diagonal tension crack (shear failure)
Yielding of tension steel followed by crushing of compression concrete after
extended deflections
No failure observed. Believed to be yielding of tension steel followed by crushing
of the concrete. FRP rupture might occur after significant deflections due to failure
of the concrete

A summary of the capacity and deflection results is presented in Table 3.2. A load of 15 kip (67
kN) was selected for comparing deflection, and hence stiffness, before first significant cracking.
First significant cracking is indicated by the sudden change in slope at approximately 20 kip.
Stiffness after first significant cracking was calculated from the slope of the load-deflection
curve after cracking.
Figures 3.1 to 3.4 show the load vs. deflection plots for the four beams. Midspan deflection for
the S-Only Beam went beyond the range of the DCDT2. Consequently, part of the plot is shown
as an extrapolated line. For all plots used in this study, the applied moment at the midspan in
kip-ft is always three times the applied load in kip based on the relationship M=PL/3 where P is
the total applied load and L is the span length. The applied moment in kN-m is 0.914 times
the load in kN. The applied shear is 1/2 the applied load.

11

Table 3.2: Summary of load and deflection

Item
Midspan Deflection at
15 kip (67 kN)

Control
0.0465 in
(1.18 mm)

Flexure-Only
0.0480 in
(1.22 mm)

Shear-Only
0.0489 in
(1.24 mm)

Shear & Flexure

0.0435 in
(1.10 mm)

Stiffness After First

Significant Cracking1

115 kip/in
(20.1 kN/mm)

139 kip/in
(24.3 kN/m)

134 kip/in
(23.5 kN/m)

150 kip/in
(26.3 kN/m)

Midspan Deflection at
Steel Yield2

Did Not Yield

Did Not Yield

0.896 in
(23 mm)

Did Not Yield

Maximum Observed
Deflection

0.963 in
(24.5 mm)

1.193 in
(30.3 mm)

1.390 in
(35 mm) 3

1.000 in
(25 mm)

Midspan Deflection at
Failure

0.963 in
(24.5 mm)

1.193 in
(30.3 mm)

2.00 in
(51 mm)3

Did Not Fail4

Load at First
Significant Cracking1

17.6 kip
(78.3 kN)

21.7 kip
(96.5 kN)

19.7 kip
(87.6 kN)

21.6 kip
(96.1 kN)

Load at Failure

107 kip
(476 kN)

155 kip
(689 kN)

155 kip
(689 kN)

Did Not Fail4

Applied Moment at
Yield2

Did Not Yield

Did Not Yield

360 kip-ft
(488 kN-m)

Did Not Yield

Maximum Applied
Moment4

321 kip-ft
(435 kN-m)

465 kip-ft
(630 kN-m)

465 kip-ft
(630 kN-m)

480 kip-ft
(651 kN-m)5

Maximum Applied
Shear

53.5 kip
(234 kN)

77.5 kip
(345 kN)

77.5 kip
(345 kN)

80.0 kip
(356 kN)

First significant cracking is indicated by the first slope change of the load-deflection plot.

Primary tension reinforcement only yielded in the S-Only Beam.

3
Extrapolated.

4
S&F Beam was not loaded to failure due to equipment limitations.

5
A second loading of the S&F Beam achieved a total applied moment of 640 kip-ft (868 kN-m).

12

mm
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

120

534
DCDT 1 & 3

Load (kip)

100

Midspan

445

80

356

60

267

40

kN

178
MAXIMUM
Deflect: 0.963 in. (24.5 mm)
Load: 107 kip (476 kN)

20
0
0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

89

1.20

0
1.40

30

35

Deflection (in)
Figure 3.1: Load vs. deflection for the Control Beam

mm
0

10

15

20

25

180

801
DCDT 1 & 3

Load (kip)

160

Midspan

712

140

623

120

534

100

445 kN

80

356

60

267
MAXIMUM
Deflect: 1.19 in. (30.3 mm)
Load: 155 kip (689 kN)

40
20
0
0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

178
89
1.20

Deflection (in)
Figure 3.2: Load vs. deflection for the Flexure-Only Beam

13

0
1.40

mm
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

180

801

160

712

DCDT 1 & 3

Midspan

Load (kip)

140
120

623
534

Steel Yielding

100

445 kN

80

356

60

267
MAXIMUM
Deflect: ~2.0 in. (51 mm)
Load: 155 kip (689 kN)

40

178

20

89

0
0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

0
2.00

Deflection (in)
Figure 3.3: Load vs. deflection for the Shear-Only Beam

mm
0

10

15

20

25

30

180

801
DCDT 1 & 3

160

Load (kip)

35

Midspan

712

140

623

120

534

100

445 kN

80

356

60

267
MAXIMUM
Deflect: 1.00 in. (25.4 mm)
Load: 160 kip (712 kN)

40
20
0
0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

Deflection (in)

Figure 3.4: Load vs. deflection for the S&F Beam (beam did not fail)

14

178
89
0
1.40

3.2

STRAIN DATA

Appendix C presents the load vs. strain data. Figures 3.5 to 3.8 provide midspan strain as a
function of load for the four beams. The steel yielding in the S-Only Beam is indicated in Figure
3.7. Figure 3.8 shows the strain in the tension steel reinforcement of the S&F Beam had just
exceeded the design limit strain of 0.002. Consequently, the anticipated failure mode for the
S&F Beam was flexural failure characterized by steel yielding followed by concrete crushing.
120

534

Load (kip)

1CON13

1STL11

1STL18

100

445

80

356

60

267

40

kN

178
1CON13 Top @ midspan

20

89

1STL11 #16 bar @ midspan

1STL18 #22 bar @ midspan

0
-2000

-1500

-1000

-500

500

1000

0
2000

1500

Microstrain

Figure 3.5: Control Beam load vs. strain at midspan

180

801
2CON13

Load (kip)

160

2STL7

2CON12

2FRP8

2STL11

2FRP10

712

140

623

120

534

100

445

80

356

60
40
20
0
-2500

267

2CON13 Top @ Midspan

2STL7 #16 Bar @ Midspan
2CON12 Midheight @ Midspan
2FRP8 Side @ 6" from Bottom
2STL11 #22 Bar @ Midspan
2FRP10 Bottom @ Midspan

-2000

-1500

-1000

-500

178
89

500

1000

1500

Microstrain

Figure 3.6: F-Only Beam load vs. strain at midspan

15

2000

0
2500

kN

180
3CON13

160

801

3CON13 Top @ Midspan

712

3CON11 Midheight @ Midspan

3STL8 #19 Bar @ Midspan

140

3STL7 #22 Bar @ Midspan

120
Load (kip)

623

Steel Yielding

534

3STL7,8

100

445

80

356

60

267

40

kN

178

3CON11

20

89

0
-3000

-2000

-1000

1000

0
3000

2000

Microstrain

Figure 3.7: S-Only Beam load vs. strain at midspan

801

180

Load (kip)

160

4CON7
4CON12

4CFRP17
4CFRP14
712
4STL9

4STL8

140

623

120

534

100

445

80

356

4CON13
4CON7 Top @ Midspan
4CON12 3" from Top @ Midspan
4STL8 #16 Bar @ Midspan
4CON13 Midheight @ Midspan
4CFRP17 27" from Top @ Midspan
4STL9 #19 Bar @ Midspan
4CFRP14 Bottom @ Midspan

60
40
20
0
-2000

-1500

-1000

-500

500

kN

1000

1500

2000

2500

267
178
89

0
3000

Microstrain

Figure 3.8: S&F Beam load vs. strain at midspan

16

Click to continue