Composite Structures 329 (2024) 117758

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composite Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

Database evaluation and reliability calibration for flexural strength of

hybrid FRP/steel-RC Beams
Ahmad Tarawneh a, *, Omar Alajarmeh b, Roaa Alawadi c, Hadeel Amirah a, Razan Alramadeen a
a
Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, The Hashemite University, P.O. box 330127, Zarqa 13133, Jordan
b
Centre for Future Materials, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, 4350 Queensland, Australia
c
Civil Engineering Department, Applied Science Private University, Amman, Jordan

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Concrete beams reinforced with hybrid fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) and steel bars combine the advantages of
Hybrid reinforcement both FRP and steel. The corrosion resistance and service-life are improved by placing the FRP bars, while steel
Failure mode bars will provide better serviceability through the higher elastic modulus and better ductility through yielding.
Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) reinforcement
However, there are no design provisions for hybrid FRP/steel-RC members, and the design models were eval­
Flexural capacity
Reliability analysis
uated over limited experimental data. This study presents a statistical and reliability evaluation for designing
hybrid FRP/steel-RC beams under flexure over a worldwide experimental database. The database comprises 136
hybrid FRP/steel-RC beams tested under flexure. Theoretical balanced failure states have shown the ability to
correctly predict the failure mode of the specimens. Two specimens were classified inaccurately in terms of
failure mode, which is attributed to the variability in the materials’ properties. Statistical evaluation for moment
predictions for specimens with failure mode 2 (steel yield-concrete crushing) showed a mean, standard deviation,
and coefficient of variation of 1.143, 0.169, and 14.7 %, respectively. Additionally, a reliability analysis is
conducted to calibrate and recommend the strength reduction factor for the ACI 440 provisions. Targeting a
reliability index of 3.5, a strength reduction factor of ϕ = 0.80 is selected as the appropriate.

elastic behavior until failure with no yielding plateau behavior (Fig. 1a).
Generally, FRP bars have higher tensile strength than steel reinforcing
1. Introduction
bars; however, they have a lower elastic modulus, ranging from 20 % to
80 % of the steel elastic modulus, depending on the type and amount of
Corrosion of steel reinforcing bars is one of the major causes of
fibers [2]. Numerous studies investigated the flexural performance and
deterioration in reinforced concrete (RC) structures, especially in harsh
capacity of FRP-reinforced concrete (FRP-RC) beam, and specific design
environments, and is associated with high repair/replacement costs. In
provisions have been developed for FRP-RC, such as the ACI 440.11–22.
RC members, reinforcing bars are protected against corrosion by the
However, due to the lower elastic modulus, FRP-RC beams exhibit more
concrete cover and the high alkalinity of the concrete. With time, the
considerable deflections and wider cracks compared to steel-RC beams
alkalinity of the concrete reduces and corrosion starts when oxygen,
with the same reinforcement ratio [1,3] (Fig. 1b). Consequently, the
moisture, and aggressive agents penetrate toward the reinforcing bars1.
design of FRP-RC beams is typically governed by serviceability (meeting
Corrosion starts at steel bars in the outer steel layer, specifically corner
deflection criteria). Moreover, the linear elastic behavior of FRP bars
bars. If the concrete cover spalls off, corrosion can penetrate to the inner
limits the ability of energy dissipation compared to steel bars that
steel layer [1].
dissipate energy through inelastic behavior and limits the failure mode
Over the last decade, Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) reinforcing
to either FRP bars rupture or concrete crushing. These concerns limited
bars have emerged as a promising alternative for conventional steel bars
the use of FRP bars and promoted hybrid concrete beams reinforced with
in harsh environments, given their corrosion resistance, high tensile
a combination of both FRP and steel bars [3] (referred to as hybrid FRP/
strength-to-weight ratio, and high fatigue resistance properties. FRP
steel-RC in this study).
bars encompass aligned fibers made of carbon (CFRP), glass (GFRP),
Hybrid FRP/steel reinforced concrete RC beams with FRP and steel
basalt (BFRP), or aramid (AFRP). They are recognized for their linear

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A. Tarawneh), [email protected] (O. Alajarmeh), [email protected] (R. Alawadi), [email protected]
(H. Amirah), [email protected] (R. Alramadeen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2023.117758
Received 9 July 2023; Received in revised form 7 November 2023; Accepted 23 November 2023
Available online 26 November 2023
0263-8223/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Tarawneh et al. Composite Structures 329 (2024) 117758

Nomenclature 145 psi)

fy yield stress of steel reinforcement, MPa (1 MPa = 145 psi)
Af area of FRP reinforcement, mm2 (1 in.2 = 645 mm2) M,exp experimental moment capacity, kN.m (1 N.mm = 0.0089
Ar ratio of steel reinforcement area to FRP reinforcement area lb.in)
As area of steel reinforcement, mm2 (1 in.2 = 645 mm2) M,pred predicted moment capacity, kN.m (1 N.mm = 0.0089 lb.in)
b beam width, mm (1 in. = 25.4 mm) β reliability index
c neutral axis depth, mm (1 in. = 25.4 mm) α, β stress block parameters
df distance from extreme compression fibers to FRP bars, mm βT targeted reliability index
(1 in. = 25.4 mm) εc strain in concrete
ds distance from extreme compression fibers to steel bars, mm εcu ultimate strain for concrete in compression (0.003)
(1 in. = 25.4 mm) εf strain in FRP reinforcement
Ef elastic modulus of FRP reinforcement, MPa (1 MPa = 145 εfu rupture strain in FRP reinforcement
psi) εs strain in steel reinforcement
Es elastic modulus of steel reinforcement, MPa (1 MPa = 145 εy yield strain of steel reinforcement
psi) ρef effective FRP reinforcement ratio
f′c concrete compressive strength, MPa (1 MPa = 145 psi) ρef,b balanced effective FRP reinforcement ratio
ff tensile stress in FRP reinforcing bars, MPa (1 MPa = 145 ρes effective steel reinforcement ratio
psi) ρes,b balanced effective steel reinforcement ratio
ffu rupture tensile stress in FRP reinforcement, MPa (1 MPa = ϕ strength reduction factor

reinforcement combine the advantages of both FRP and steel bars. The improved in hybrid FRP/steel-RC beams. Safan [1] proposed and
corrosion resistance, service life, and ultimate moment capacity are experimentally validated an analytical model to predict the flexural
improved by placing the FRP bars in the outer layer and shifting the steel capacity of hybrid GFRP-steel RC beams in a favorable ductile manner.
bars to the inner layer. On the other hand, the steel bars will provide Moreover, a minimum limit for the tensile strain of steel reinforcement
better serviceability through the higher elastic modulus and better was specified to guarantee the ductile failure of hybrid RC beams. Also,
ductility through yielding [1,3] (Fig. 1b). In addition, with proper different research studies investigated prediction models for the flexural
design, FRP bars will improve the self-centering capacity, while steel capacity of hybrid FRP/steel-RC beams.
bars and concrete will dissipate energy through inelastic behavior [3]. It should be highlighted that although the ACI has design provisions
Over the last two decades, a considerable number of experimental for FRP-RC (ACI 440.11–22) and the use of hybrid FRP and steel rein­
research has been conducted to investigate the flexural capacity and forcement has been recognized as a strengthening technique known as
behavior of hybrid FRP/steel-RC [1,4–34]. Through experimental near-surface mounted (ACI 440.2R-17), there are no design provisions
research, three failure modes for hybrid FRP/steel-RC beams were for hybrid FRP/steel-RC members. In addition, theoretical design
identified based on the reinforcement ratio of FRP and steel provided, models in different studies were evaluated over a limited number of
steel yield followed by FRP bar rupture, steel yield followed by concrete experimental data, and there is no available large experimental database
crushing, and concrete crushing before steel yield and FRP rupture [3]. published for the flexural capacity of hybrid FRP/steel-RC beams. These
An experimental study by Aiello and Ombres [4] evaluated the limitations, along with the limited research available on the reliability
serviceability of hybrid FRP/steel-RC beams and confirmed that hybrid assessment of hybrid FRP/steel-RC beams, motivated this research. To
FRP/steel-RC beams with a reasonable ratio of steel to FRP reinforce­ fill this gap, this study presents (1) a discussion of the analysis and
ment will experience less deformation and reduce the crack width design models of hybrid FRP/steel-RC beam, (2) developing a world­
compared to FRP-RC beams. A study by Yoon et al. [19] showed that the wide up-to-date experimental database of the flexural capacity of hybrid
low post-cracking stiffness, high deflection, crack propagation, large FRP/steel-RC beam, (3) a database evaluation based on theoretical
crack width, and low ductility of FRP-RC beams were controlled and models (4) reliability analysis and strength reduction factor calibration

Fig. 1. Behavior of (a) steel and FRP bars and (b) Moment-curvature (M-φ) FRP-, steel-, and hybrid-RC cracked sections.

2
A. Tarawneh et al. Composite Structures 329 (2024) 117758

for hybrid FRP/steel-RC beams. ρef,b and ρes < ρes,b, FM2 is expected [3].
[( ) ]
Af Ef df εcu df As
2. Failure modes and flexural nominal resistance ρes = − 1 + + (3)
bds Es ds εy ds bds
Based on the steel and FRP reinforcement ratios, experimental and
f ′c εcu
analytical studies identified three failure modes for hybrid FRP/steel- ρes,b = 0.85β1 (4)
fy εcu + εy
RC beams (Fig. 2a); failure mode I (FM1) that involves yielding of steel
bars followed by the rupture of FRP bars without concrete crushing; In Equations (1) through (4), Af is the area of FRP reinforcement, As is
failure mode II (FM2) in which the steel yield followed by the crushing of the area of steel reinforcement, b is the width of the beam, ffu is the
concrete without rupture of FRP bars; and failure mode III (FM3), which ultimate tensile strength of the FRP bars, f′c is the concrete compressive
involves the crushing of concrete while tensile steel and FRP rein­ strength, fy is the yield stress of the steel, εfu is the ultimate tensile strain
forcement are in an elastic state. The strain range for each failure mode for FRP, df is the distance from extreme concrete compression fiber to
is shown in Fig. 2b. It should be noted that steel bars will always yield the centroid of FRP reinforcement, ds is the distance from extreme
before the rupture of FRP bars as the yield strain is significantly less than concrete compression fiber to the centroid of steel reinforcement, and β1
the rupture strain of FRP bars [3], as shown in Fig. 1a. During design, is the ratio of the depth of equivalent rectangular stress block to a
FM2 is preferred to maintain the steel yielding and concrete crushing neutral axis depth (based on ACI 318 provisions).
mode to ensure ductile behavior, and to avoid FRP rupture. FM1 should The nominal flexural capacity (Mn) of hybrid FRP/steel-RC is
be avoided due to the catastrophic failure of FRP rupture, and FM3 dependent on the failure mode of the beam. Fig. 3 shows the stress and
should be avoided due to the lack of ductile behavior. In addition, the strain in concrete, steel, and FRP for each failure mode. Basic equilib­
concept of a hybrid FRP/steel-RC beam was proposed to enhance the rium equations, mainly summation of the moment about concrete
behavior of the FRP-RC beam. As a result, most experimental and compressive force, can be used to determine Mn for each failure mode.
theoretical studies have focused on analyzing the flexural capacity of For a hybrid FRP/steel-RC beam with ρef < ρef,b (FM1), the stress in steel
hybrid FRP/steel-RC beams with FM2. Limited experimental programs reinforcement will be the yield stress, and in FRP will reach ultimate
targeted FM1 and FM3. strength. However, since the concrete is not crushed εc < εcu , Whit­
To identify the failure mode of a hybrid FRP/steel-RC beam, the ney’s rectangular stress block cannot be used (Fig. 3). Instead, an
balanced failure state I (BFS-I) that separates FM1 and FM2, and the alternative equivalent stress block defined by the α and β parameters
balanced failure state II (BFS-II) that separates FM2 and FM3 (Fig. 2b) which are strain- and stress-dependent parameters. An iterative pro­
must be defined. BFS-I is obtained when the strains in the concrete and cedure is required to determine α, β, and c. Accordingly, the nominal
FRP simultaneously reach their maximum values after yielding steel. An flexural capacity for hybrid FRP/steel-RC with FM1 can be calculated
effective FRP reinforcement ratio must first be defined as in Eq. (1) [3]. using Eq. (5). An approximate solution for flexural capacity of hybrid
Through force equilibrium and strain compatibility, the balanced failure FRP/steel-RC beam with ρef < ρef,b (FM1) can be found in Zhou [35].
condition is expressed in Eq. (2). Theoretically, when ρef < ρef,b, FM1 is ( ) ( )
expected [3]. Mn = ffu Af df −
βc
+ fy As ds −
βc
(5)
2 2
Af As fy
ρef = + (1) For hybrid FRP/steel-RC beam with ρef > ρef,b and ρes < ρes,b (FM2),
bdf bdf ffu
the stress in steel bars will be the yield stress, and the concrete
fc′ εcu compressive stress can be approximated using Whitney’s rectangular
ρef ,b = 0.85β1 (2) stress block since εc = εcu (Fig. 3). However, the stress in FRP bars is less
ffu εcu + εfu
than the ultimate tensile stress (ff) and can be determined using hook’s
On the other hand, BFS-II is obtained when the strain in the concrete low (ff = Ef εf ). The strain in FRP bars can be determined using equi­
reaches the ultimate compressive strain εcu and the strain in the steel librium (tension = compression) and strain compatibility (εf =εcu (df -c)/c).
reaches the yielding strain εy simultaneously, while FRP bars are still in Alternatively, Safan1 provided a closed-form solution for stress in FRP
their elastic range. In this case, an effective steel reinforcement ratio bars shown in Eq. (6), where Ar = As/Af. Consequently, the Mn for hybrid
needs to be defined as in Eq. (3). Through force equilibrium and strain FRP/steel-RC beam with FM2 can be determined using Eq. (7).
compatibility, the balanced failure condition is expressed in Eq. (4).
When ρef > ρef,b, and ρes > ρes,b, FM3 is expected, which is concrete
crushing before steel yielding and FRP rupture. Accordingly, when ρef >

Fig. 2. Failure modes in hybrid FRP/steel-RC beams (a) distribution of reinforcement ratio corresponding to FMs (b) cross-sectional strain ranges in hybrid FRP/
steel-RC beams for each FM.

3
A. Tarawneh et al. Composite Structures 329 (2024) 117758

Fig. 3. Sectional strain, stress distribution, and equivalent stress in hybrid FRP/steel-RC for FM1, FM2, and FM3.

√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
√( )
√ Ar fy + Ef εcu 2 (0.85β f ′ )
( ) 3. Experimental database
ff = √ + 1 c
− Ar fy Ef εcu − 0.5 Ar fy + Ef εcu ≤ ffu
4 ρf
In order to provide a comprehensive evaluation and strength
(6)
reduction factor calibration for the flexural capacity of hybrid FRP/
(
βc
) (
βc
) steel-RC beams, a reliable experimental database with representative
Mn = fy As ds − 1 + ff Af df − 1 (7) variable ranges is required. Accordingly, an up-to-date worldwide
2 2
experimental database was surveyed through literature. The database
For a hybrid FRP/steel-RC beam with ρef > ρef,b, and ρes > ρes,b (FM3), comprises 136 hybrid FRP/steel-RC beams tested under flexural from 32
the concrete compressive stress can be approximated using Whit­ studies [1,4–34]. Variables surveyed include cross-sectional parameters,
ney’s rectangular stress block since εc = εcu . However, steel and FRP bars concrete compressive strength, area and properties of steel and FRP
will be in their elastic range (Fig. 3). Stress in steel (fs) and FRP (ff) bars reinforcement, failure mode, and the experimental flexural capacity.
can be determined using the hook’s low. The strain in steel and FRP bars Statistical distributions of material properties in the database are shown
can be determined using equilibrium and strain compatibility. Accord­ in Fig. 4. Distribution of the concrete compressive strength, FRP elastic
ingly, Mn for hybrid FRP/steel-RC beam with FM3 can be determined modulus, steel yield stress, and the ratio of FRP-to-steel reinforcement
using Eq. (8). areas are shown in Fig. 4a-4d, respectively. As shown in Fig. 4e, 73 % of
( ) ( ) the specimens included GFRP reinforcement, and the remaining
βc βc
Mn = fs As ds − 1 + ff Af df − 1 (8) included BFRP (17 %), CFRP (7 %), and AFRP (3 %) reinforcement. In
2 2
addition, 124 specimens in the database exhibited FM2, while 12

4
A. Tarawneh et al. Composite Structures 329 (2024) 117758

Fig. 4. Distribution of variables in the database.

specimens exhibited FM1 and FM3 (Fig. 4f,). specimens were inaccurately classified as FM2. The two specimens that
The surveyed database is presented in Appendix 1. To the authors’ were classified correctly as FM2 (experimentally were FM1) had a ratio
best knowledge, this database is the most extensive database surveyed ρef / ρef,b of 1.1 and 1.3, which are close to the BFS-I. This can be seen in
for the flexural capacity of hybrid FRP/steel-RC beams. The database has Fig. 6, which shows the distribution of the specimens (FM1 and FM2)
been made available to researchers for analysis and evaluation purposes with respect to ρef / ρef,b. The inaccurate prediction is attributed to the
and in support of proposing design provisions for hybrid FRP/steel-RC variability in the material properties. Peng et al. [3] conducted a
beams. probabilistic analysis of flexural failure modes based on the Monte Carlo
simulation technique that include the variability in materials properties.
4. Database evaluation The study suggests criteria of ρef > 1.5 ρef,b for at achieve FM2 with a 95
% probability of occurrence. Similarly, to avoid FM3, the study suggests
This section evaluates the analytical procedure described in section 3 criteria of ρes < 0.73 ρes,b. Adopting Peng et al. recommendation is
to assess the accuracy in predicting the failure mode and nominal flex­ important specifically as the number of specimens in the database with
ural capacity of specimens surveyed in the database. Fig. 5 shows the FM3 is only 2, and the accuracy of the prediction can not be assessed.
failure mode prediction matrix using Eqs. 1–4. It can be seen that the As this study focuses on FM2, Fig. 7 shows the experimental (M,exp)
failure mode was predicted correctly for specimens that exhibited FM2 and the predicted (M,pred.) flexural capacity for FM2 data (124 speci­
and FM3 with an accuracy of 100 %. For FM1 specimens, eight speci­ mens). The mean, standard deviation, and coefficient of variation of the
mens were classified accurately as FM1, while the remaining two M,exp/M,pred. ratios are 1.143, 0.169, and 14.7 %, respectively. Since
three materials are used in hybrid FRP/steel-RC beams (concrete, steel,
and FRP), it is important to assess the prediction accuracy across the
variables ranges. Fig. 8 plots the M,exp/M,pred. ratios with respect to the
ρef, concrete compressive strength f′c, steel yield stress fy, and FRP elastic

Fig. 5. Failure mode prediction matrix. Fig. 6. Distribution FM1 and FM2 with respect to ρef / ρef,b.

5
A. Tarawneh et al. Composite Structures 329 (2024) 117758

5. Reliability analysis

As mentioned earlier, the current ACI 440 provisions do not include

design provisions for hybrid FRP/steel-RC members. In support of
developing such provisions, the current section provides a calibration
for the strength reduction factor based on the ACI load combinations
[36,37].
Determining the level of reliability (safety) of a design equation and
the needed strength reduction factor requires accounting for the un­
certainty of the applied load, material properties, distribution of the
normalized strength (Mexp. / Mpred.), and the probability of failure at
different loads (i.e., live-to-dead load ratio (L/D)) ratios. A data-driven
reliability analysis was conducted to assess the reliability level in the
analytical procedure to predict the flexural capacity of hybrid FRP/steel-
RC beams in terms of the probability of failure and the associated reli­
ability index (β). The probability of failure and β are considered direct
measurements of the level of reliability. Statistically, the reliability
index represents the number of standard deviations between zero and
the mean in the (resistance-load) distribution. Current design practices
recommend reliability indices based on the consequences of failure and
Fig. 7. Comparison between experimental and predicted flexural capacity of the economic design aspects. For flexure, the reliability index β is be­
hybrid FRP/steel-RC beams with FM2. Note: subfigure indicates extension for tween 3.0 and 3.5, while it is between 3.5 and 4 for sudden failures or
the figure’s axes. severe consequences [38,39].
The procedure adopted in this study for data-driven reliability
modulus Ef. The figure indicates nearly flat trendlines for all variables, analysis using Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) is an improved version of
which indicates consistent predictions across all variables. In summary, the Farrow and Klingler [40] procedure. Farrow and Klingler conducted
the results showed that the analytical procedure yielded high accuracy reliability analyses for anchors loaded in shear and tension to assess the
in capturing the failure and predicting the flexural capacity of hybrid reliability of the design model and to calibrate the appropriate strength
FRP/steel-RC beams. reduction factors, which is adopted in ACI 318–19. Their procedure,
however, assumes normal distributions for load and resistance, con­
siders only live load, and conducted only 10,000 simulations, which
does not guarantee convergence [40]. Their procedure was modified

Fig. 8. M,exp/M,pred. ratios with respect to (a) ρef / ρef,b, (b) concrete compressive strength f′c (c) steel yield stress fy, and (d) FRP elastic modulus Ef.

6
A. Tarawneh et al. Composite Structures 329 (2024) 117758

and improved in this study to overcome such limitations by considering expressed by the term reliability index β.
more realistic distribution types, adding combinations of live and dead Following the procedure described above, the reliability index was
loads to cover a wide range of live-to-dead load ratios, and using up to evaluated for the flexural behavior of hybrid FRP/steel-RC beams. The
10 million simulations to guarantee convergence. results of the reliability β analysis are presented in Fig. 10. The reliability
A failure state occurs when the applied loads exceed capacity. This index β has been evaluated over load ratio (D/(D + L)) from 0.2 to 1.0,
definition can be written in equation form as shown in Eq. (9), where R is and using five strength reduction factors (ϕ); 0.90, 0.85, 0.80, 0.75, and
the resistance, PD is the dead load, and PL is the live load. A negative G 0.70 to select the appropriate factor. It can be seen that the lowest β
value in Eq. (9) indicates a failure state. Accordingly, statistical distri­ value corresponds to the load ratio of about 0.90, at which the con­
butions for PD, PL, and capacity must be established (Fig. 9). First, PD trolling load combination switches (Eq. (10)).
distribution was assumed to have a nominal mean of 1.0. Szerszen et al. According to Szerszen et al. [41], the targeted reliability index (βT)
[41] reported that PD exhibits a normal distribution with a bias of 1.05 for the RC beam under flexure is 3.5, and the most probable load ratio is
and CoV of 10 %. In contrast, PL distribution exhibits an extreme type I from 0.3 to 0.6 (highlighted in red in Fig. 10). Within the most probable
distribution with a bias and CoV of 1.00 and 18 %, respectively. The load ratio range and unlike steel-RC beam in the ACI 318–19, strength
nominal mean for live-load distribution equals 1 (mean of PD) multiplied reduction factors 0.90 and 0.85 will result in a β less than βT = 3.5. Based
by the live-to-dead load ratio (L/D). The actual mean was equal to the on Fig. 10, the safest strength reduction factor of hybrid FRP/steel-RC
nominal mean multiplied by the bias in each distribution. In this paper, beams is noticed to be ϕ = 0.80 (labeled in red) which results in β
the analysis was conducted on a range of L/D ratios from 0 to 4. values closest and exceeds the targeted reliability index (βT = 3.5).
G = R − PD − P L (9)
6. Conclusions
The nominal mean for the resistance distribution is determined using
the load and resistance factored design (LRFD) Eq. (10), where the The motivation behind this study is that there are no design pro­
controlling load combination is divided by the strength reduction factor. visions for hybrid FRP/steel-RC members in the ACI 440 provisions. In
A strength reduction factor of 0.9, according to ACI 318–19, was used addition, theoretical design models in different studies were evaluated
throughout the analysis. The resistance distribution type and properties over a limited number of experimental data. The study begins with
were informed from the (Mexp. / Mpred.) data. summarizing the stress and strain distributions, the corresponding
{
1.4PD
max ≤ ∅Rn (10)
1.2PD + 1.6PL

Measurements of live loads in building codes are generally higher

than what the building experiences. For example, building codes specify
a live load at the 95 percentile for offices [42,43]. This means the design
load is higher than or equal to 95 percent of the observed live loads.
Accordingly, the live load distribution is shifted by a ratio of 1.325. This
value corresponds to the 95 percentile for extreme type 1 distribution.
After establishing the three distributions, a Monte Carlo simulation
was performed to generate simulations (data points) in each distribution
(Fig. 9). To calculate the probability of failure, the limit state function in
Eq. (9) was calculated. A negative value for the G function represents a
failure state, while a safe state is otherwise. The probability of failure
was calculated by dividing the frequency for which the G function
presented a failure state by the total number of simulations.
In reliability analysis, live-to-dead load ratio is usually expressed by
the term D/(D + L). The adopted range of L/D ratio corresponds to a D/ Fig. 10. Reliability index β versus load ratio for flexural strength of hybrid
(D + L) ratio of 0.2 to 1. In addition, the probability of failure is FRP/steel-RC beams.

Fig. 9. Illustration of the adopted MCS reliability analysis.

7
A. Tarawneh et al. Composite Structures 329 (2024) 117758

failure modes in hybrid FRP/steel-RC, and the moment capacity for each Plotting the M,exp/M,pred. ratios with respect to the ρef, concrete
failure mode. The study then presents a comprehensive evaluation and compressive strength f′c, steel yield stress fy, and FRP elastic modulus
statistical analysis of the largest database surveyed of hybrid FRP/steel- Ef. Indicated nearly flat trendlines for all variables, which indicates
RC beams. Finally, the study presents an improved reliability evaluation consistent predictions across all variables.
and strength reduction factor calibration for designing hybrid FRP/steel- 4- A Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) based reliability analysis is con­
RC beams under flexure. The main contributions and the conclusions of ducted to calibrate the strength reduction factor for hybrid FRP/
the study can be summarized as follows: steel-RC beams. Targeting a reliability index of 3.5 over a load
ratio (D/(D + L)), a strength reduction factor of ϕ = 0.80 is selected
1- Due to the lack of a large experimental database published for hybrid as the safest and most appropriate. Whereas, a strength reduction
FRP/steel-RC, the accuracy of prediction models’ has been tested factor of 0.9 similar to steel-RC beams in the ACI 318–19 will result
over a limited number of experimental data. Accordingly, the study in a β value less than 3.5.
presents the first large worldwide up-to-date experimental database 5- It should be mentioned that the conducted reliability analysis is
for hybrid FRP/steel-RC under flexure. The database comprises 136 based ACI 440 provisions in terms of the load combinations and the
hybrid FRP/steel-RC beams tested and failed in flexure from 32 acceptable targeted reliability index. In addition, conclusions made
studies (see Appendix A). In the database, 73 % of the specimens on the evaluation, statistical analysis, and model accuracy are
included GFRP reinforcement, and the remaining included BFRP (17 limited to the range of variables in the database.
%), CFRP (7 %), and AFRP (3 %) reinforcement. In addition, 91 % of
the specimens in the database exhibited FM2, while the remaining 9 CRediT authorship contribution statement
% of specimens exhibited FM1 and FM3.
2- The theoretical balanced failure states (BFS I, BFS II) have shown the Ahmad Tarawneh: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation,
ability to predict the failure mode of specimens with FM2 and FM3 in Supervision. Omar Alajarmeh: Methodology, Investigation. Roaa
the database with an accuracy of 100 %. For FM1 specimens, eight Alawadi: Methodology, Investigation. Hadeel Amirah: Investigation.
specimens were classified accurately as FM1, while the remaining Razan Alramadeen: Investigation.
two specimens were inaccurately classified as FM2. The two speci­
mens that were classified correctly as FM2 (experimentally were
FM1) had a ratio ρef / ρef,b of 1.1 and 1.3, which are close to the Declaration of competing interest
balanced failure ratio ρef /ρef,b. = 1. The inaccurate prediction is
attributed to the variability in the material properties. The recom­ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
mended criteria presented by Peng et al.3 with ρef > 1.5 ρef,b for at interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
achieve FM2 and ρes < 0.73 ρes,b. to avoid FM3 is important for the work reported in this paper.
confident predictions.
3- Statistical evaluation for moment predictions for specimens with Data availability
FM2 showed a mean, standard deviation, and coefficient of variation
of the M,exp/M,pred. ratios are 1.143, 0.169, and 14.7 %, respectively. Data will be made available on request.

Appendix A
EXPERIMENTAL DATABASE

Reference specimen name FRP Type b h f ’c MPa As Af Ef Mexp Mexp/ Mode of failure
mm2 mm2 MPa kN.m Mth

Aiello and Ombres [4] A1 AFRP 150 200 45.7 100.48 88.31 49,000 25.1 1.40 FM2
A2 AFRP 150 200 45.7 100.48 157 50,000 28.4 1.28 FM2
A3 AFRP 150 200 45.7 226.08 235.5 50,000 35.6 1.23 FM2
C1 AFRP 150 200 45.7 100.48 88.31 49,000 25.1 1.31 FM2
Leung and Balendran [5] L2 GFRP 150 200 28.5 157.1 142.66 40,800 22.2 1.43 FM2
L5 GFRP 150 200 28.5 157.1 214 40,800 23.1 1.33 FM2
H2 GFRP 150 200 48.8 157.1 142.66 40,800 21.1 1.12 FM2
H5 GFRP 150 200 48.8 157.1 214 40,800 27.1 1.26 FM2
Qu et al. [24] B3 GFRP 180 250 28.14 226.08 253.23 45,000 38.3 1.01 FM2
B4 GFRP 180 250 28.14 200 396.91 41,000 39.7 0.98 FM2
B5 GFRP 180 250 29.2 401.92 141.69 37,700 36.4 0.97 FM2
B6 GFRP 180 250 29.2 401.92 253.23 45,000 42.6 0.97 FM2
B7 GFRP 180 250 34.6 113.04 141.69 37,700 23.6 0.84 FM2
B8 GFRP 180 250 34.6 1205.7 397 41,000 63.3 0.92 FM2
lau and pam [7] G0.3-MD1-A90 GFRP 280 380 41.3 981.75 283.53 39,500 147.0 0.98 FM2
G1.0-T0.7-A90 GFRP 280 380 39.3 628.32 981.75 38,000 261.0 1.28 FM2
G0.6-T1.0-A90 GFRP 280 380 40 981.75 567.1 39,500 229.0 1.07 FM2
Nguyen et al. [8] 2G10-2S10 GFRP 152 254 33.28 157 157 44,300 34.4 1.13 FM1
2G10-2S12 GFRP 155 252 34.48 226 157 44,300 35.5 1.05 FM2
2G10-2S14 GFRP 150 253 31.36 308 157 44,300 38.0 1.08 FM2
2G12-2S10 GFRP 150 250 32.8 157 226 44,300 41.3 1.21 FM2
2G12-2S12 GFRP 155 250 29.92 226 226 44,300 45.6 1.28 FM2
2G12-2S14 GFRP 151 248 30.88 308 226 44,300 45.0 1.17 FM2
2G14-2S10 GFRP 151 251 32.8 157 308 44,300 48.4 1.28 FM2
2G14-2S12 GFRP 148 250 35.44 226 308 44,300 45.8 1.12 FM2
2G14-2S14 GFRP 153 255 34.56 308 308 44,300 56.5 1.30 FM2
3G14-2S10 GFRP 152 254 32.72 157 462 44,300 49.4 1.14 FM2
3G14-2S12 GFRP 153 254 32.8 226 462 44,300 53.1 1.17 FM2
(continued on next page)

8
A. Tarawneh et al. Composite Structures 329 (2024) 117758

(continued )
Reference specimen name FRP Type b h f ’c MPa As Af Ef Mexp Mexp/ Mode of failure
mm2 mm2 MPa kN.m Mth

3G14-2S14 GFRP 155 255 34.32 308 462 44,300 56.7 1.16 FM2
Safan et al. (2013) B10/8S GFRP 100 200 30 157 100.6 39,000 14.4 1.04 FM2
B10/6S GFRP 100 200 30 157 56.6 41,000 14.1 1.11 FM2
B12/8S GFRP 100 200 30 226 100.6 39,000 16.3 1.08 FM2
B12/6S GFRP 100 200 30 226 56.6 41,000 14.9 1.05 FM2
Ge et al. [9] BG BFRP 120 180 35.08 113 226 46,100 20.7 0.95 FM2
BH BFRP 120 180 35.08 113 113 46,100 16.2 0.90 FM2
Nachiappan et al. [10] 10_1_1 BFRP 100 200 35 79 79 47,500 15.2 1.16 FM2
Unsal et al. [11] A3 GFRP 150 250 47.7 79 141.76 50,000 27.8 0.91 FM2
A4 GFRP 150 250 47.7 79 207.74 50,000 27.4 0.78 FM2
B1 GFRP 150 250 43.1 158 141.76 50,000 31.7 0.92 FM2
B2 GFRP 150 250 43.1 158 207.74 50,000 32.1 0.84 FM2
B3 GFRP 150 250 43.1 158 141.76 50,000 31.4 0.99 FM2
B4 GFRP 150 250 43.1 158 207.74 50,000 31.7 0.89 FM2
Akiel et al. [12] C1 BFRP 500 200 43 226 179.06 48,000 58.1 1.07 FM2
C2 BFRP 500 200 43 226 179.06 48,000 60.5 1.11 FM2
C3 BFRP 500 200 43 226 418 48,000 69.5 0.95 FM2
D1 BFRP 500 200 43 101 50 48,000 20.7 0.97 FM1
D2 BFRP 500 200 43 101 101 48,000 35.1 1.08 FM1
D3 BFRP 500 200 43 101 151 48,000 46.1 1.07 FM1
El Refai et al. [13] 2G12-1S10 GFRP 230 300 40 78.54 226.19 50,000 47.6 0.92 FM2
2G12-2S10 GFRP 230 300 40 157.08 226.19 50,000 53.6 0.95 FM2
2G12-2S12 GFRP 230 300 40 226.19 226.19 50,000 58.9 0.97 FM2
2G16-2S10 GFRP 230 300 40 157.08 402.12 50,000 68.3 1.00 FM2
2G16-2S12 GFRP 230 300 40 226.19 402.12 50,000 64.7 0.89 FM2
2G16-2S16 GFRP 230 300 40 402.12 402.12 50,000 83.5 1.00 FM2
Ruan et al. [14] 2G12-2S12 GFRP 180 300 30.32 226.19 226.19 40,060 57.5 1.15 FM2
2G16-2S12 GFRP 180 300 30.32 226.19 402.12 45,690 63.3 1.05 FM2
2G12-1S16 GFRP 180 300 30.32 201.06 226.19 40,060 56.4 1.16 FM2
2G16-1S16 GFRP 180 300 30.32 201.06 402.12 45,690 66.7 1.13 FM2
2G12-2S12(D) GFRP 180 300 30.32 226.19 226.19 40,060 53.8 1.14 FM2
2G16-2S12(D) GFRP 180 300 30.32 226.19 402.12 45,690 50.6 0.88 FM2
Gu et al. (2019) B-1 GFRP 500 700 27.52 1231.5 2463 41,400 1245.0 1.37 FM2
B-2 GFRP 500 700 27.52 1231.5 2463 41,400 1203.0 1.32 FM2
B-3 GFRP 500 700 27.52 1231.5 2463 41,400 1202.0 1.32 FM2
C-1 GFRP 500 700 27.52 1847.2 1847.2 41,400 1194.0 1.32 FM2
C-2 GFRP 500 700 27.52 1847.2 1847.2 41,400 1123.0 1.24 FM2
C-3 GFRP 500 700 27.52 1847.2 1847.2 41,400 1213.0 1.34 FM2
Sun et al. [16] L-1 BFRP 220 300 34.4 236 236 49,000 67.9 1.05 FM2
L-2 BFRP 220 300 34.4 236 236 49,000 71.1 1.15 FM2
L-3 BFRP 220 300 34.4 236 236 49,000 71.8 1.11 FM2
L-4 BFRP 220 300 34.4 236 236 49,000 74.9 1.17 FM2
L-5 BFRP 220 300 34.4 236 236 49,000 75.3 1.18 FM2
Kim and Kim [17] GFRP-40S GFRP 150 250 32 142.6 253.4 48,000 41.5 1.34 FM2
CFRP-40S CFRP 150 250 32 142.6 142.6 103,000 46.0 1.40 FM2
GFRP-60S GFRP 150 250 48 142.6 253.4 48,000 52.0 1.43 FM2
CFRP-60S CFRP 150 250 48 142.6 142.6 103,000 63.6 1.64 FM2
Yang et al. [18] B-2 BFRP 220 320 34.72 235.5 216.9 45,700 69.4 1.25 FM2
B-5 BFRP 220 320 34.72 235.5 216.9 45,700 74.4 1.40 FM2
B-8 BFRP 220 320 34.72 78.5 72.3 45,700 32.6 1.16 FM1
Yoon et al. [19] CS CFRP 230 250 75.9 485 128 146,200 78.2 1.11 FM2
GS GFRP 230 250 75.9 485 381 48,100 82.8 1.19 FM2
Nguyen and Dang [20] B1 GFRP 150 250 30.5 28.27 19.63 44,300 5.9 0.95 FM1
B2 GFRP 150 250 34.2 942 942.47 44,300 68.1 0.75 FM3
Tan [34] A2 GFRP 175 350 31 150 50 52,000 36.0 0.90 FM2
B2 GFRP 200 400 29 150.7 25.12 52,000 35.3 0.92 FM1
A3 GFRP 175 350 30.9 300 25 52,000 43.5 0.94 FM2
Said et al. [21] B8 GFRP 150 300 36 157 339 42,500 72.7 1.33 FM2
Xiao et al. [22] G (1)-S (2) GFRP 200 400 20.56 157 113.04 50,700 61.9 1.10 FM1
G (2)-S (1) GFRP 200 400 20.56 78.5 226.8 50,700 74.4 1.16 FM1
Araba et al. (2018) C–H-1 GFRP 200 300 40.56 402 279 55,000 92.0 1.25 FM2
C–H-2 GFRP 200 300 43.2 603 279 55,000 112.0 1.27 FM2
C–H-3 GFRP 200 300 43.68 982 279 55,000 125.0 1.10 FM3
C–H-4 GFRP 200 300 56.48 402 660 55,000 128.0 1.26 FM2
C–H-5 GFRP 200 300 60 402 1100 55,000 160.0 1.32 FM2
S-H-1 GFRP 200 300 50.56 100.5 170 55,000 62.0 1.20 FM2
S-H-2 GFRP 200 300 53.28 402 279 55,000 110.0 1.38 FM2
Wenjun Qu (2009) B3 GFRP 180 250 28.1 226.08 253.23 45,000 38.3 1.01 FM2
B4 GFRP 180 250 28.1 200.96 396.91 41,000 39.7 0.98 FM2
B5 GFRP 180 250 29.2 401.92 141.69 37,700 36.4 0.97 FM2
B6 GFRP 180 250 29.2 401.92 253.23 45,000 42.6 0.97 FM2
B7 GFRP 180 250 34.6 113.04 141.69 37,700 23.6 0.84 FM2
B8 GFRP 180 250 34.6 1205.7 396.9 41,000 63.3 0.78 FM2
Almahdi et al (2018) C–H-6 GFRP 200 300 55.6 402.2 253.4 51,000 101.0 1.15 FM2
C–H-7 GFRP 200 300 55.68 100.5 141.76 51,000 52.0 0.98 FM2
(continued on next page)

9
A. Tarawneh et al. Composite Structures 329 (2024) 117758

(continued )
Reference specimen name FRP Type b h f ’c MPa As Af Ef Mexp Mexp/ Mode of failure
mm2 mm2 MPa kN.m Mth

C–H-8 GFRP 200 300 49.76 100.5 253.4 51,000 75.0 1.16 FM2
C–H-9 GFRP 200 300 53.28 100.5 253.4 51,000 77.0 1.17 FM2
G.B. Maranan (2019) 2G_2G1S GFRP 200 300 31 200 395.8 62,600 88.6 1.32 FM2
2G_2G2S GFRP 200 300 31 400 395.8 62,600 88.0 1.26 FM2
2G_3G2S GFRP 200 300 31 400 593.7 62,600 96.3 1.25 FM2
Yang Yang (2021) B-1 BFRP 220 300 34.64 235.62 217.15 45,700 69.3 1.18 FM2
B-2 BFRP 220 300 34.64 235.62 217.15 45,700 74.9 1.32 FM2
Ge et al. (2012) FS1 BFRP 200 300 33.6 314 301 55,000 68.9 1.15 FM2
FS2 BFRP 200 300 33.6 393 251 55,000 68.9 1.14 FM2
FS3 BFRP 200 300 33.6 471 201 55,000 68.9 1.14 FM2
X. Wang et al. (2021) FS BFRP 150 250 47.2 150.8 157.57 51,300 38.7 1.17 FM1
Fang Yuan (2021) HRC-16 CFRRP 150 300 39.52 402 402 112,000 99.6 1.11 FM2
HRE-10 CFRRP 150 300 33.68 157 157 116,000 46.3 0.84 FM2
HRE-12 CFRRP 150 300 33.68 226 226 115,000 70.2 1.07 FM2
HRE-16 CFRRP 150 300 33.68 402 402 112,000 118.0 1.42 FM2
HREC-T (tension) CFRRP 150 300 33.68 402 402 112,000 103.8 1.25 FM2
HREC-C(comp) CFRRP 150 300 33.68 402 402 112,000 99.8 1.20 FM2
Y. Liu Yinghao (2013) S2 GFRP 150 250 64.1 904.32 226.08 75,980 69.9 0.93 FM2
S3 GFRP 150 250 64.1 904.32 226.08 75,980 74.8 0.93 FM2
S4 GFRP 150 250 64.1 904.32 226.08 75,980 82.0 0.96 FM2
Khalil Sijavandi (2021) RSA4FHP1 GFRP 200 200 35 157 79 46,000 33.9 1.34 FM2
RSA4FHP2 GFRP 200 200 35 157 101 46,000 37.4 1.35 FM1
RSA4FHP3 GFRP 200 200 35 157 113 46,000 39.1 1.34 FM1
Hanady Almahmood BH1 GFRP 500 200 48.8 553.2 402.2 48,000 152.9 1.12 FM2
(2020) BH2 GFRP 500 200 49.5 553.2 402.2 48,000 172.8 1.26 FM2
BH3 GFRP 500 200 52.4 553.2 402.2 48,000 179.9 1.29 FM2
BH4 GFRP 500 200 47.4 737.6 402.2 48,000 176.2 1.20 FM2
BH5 GFRP 500 200 48.7 553.2 603.3 48,000 170.4 1.09 FM2
Araba et al. (2023) B1 GFRP 200 300 40.56 402 279 55,000 113.3 1.47 FM2
B2 GFRP 200 300 55.6 402 170 55,000 108.7 1.46 FM1
B3 GFRP 200 300 55.68 100.5 279 55,000 88.7 1.28 FM1
B4 GFRP 200 300 49.76 402 279 55,000 109.7 1.33 FM2
B5 GFRP 200 300 53.28 402 170 55,000 103.1 1.40 FM2

References [16] Sun Z, Fu L, Feng DC, Vatuloka AR, Wei Y, Wu G. Experimental study on the
flexural behavior of concrete beams reinforced with bundled hybrid steel/FRP
bars. Eng Struct 2019;197:109443.
[1] Safan MA. Flexural behavior and design of steel-GFRP reinforced concrete beams.
[17] Kim S, Kim S. Flexural behavior of concrete beams with steel bar and FRP
ACI Mater J 2013;110(6):677.
reinforcement. J Asian Archit Build Eng 2019;18(2):89–97.
[2] Tarawneh A, Almasabha G, Murad Y. ColumnsNet: Neural Network Model for
[18] Yang Y, Sun ZY, Wu G, Cao DF, Pan D. Experimental study of concrete beams
Constructing Interaction Diagrams and Slenderness Limit for FRP-RC Columns.
reinforced with hybrid bars (SFCBs and BFRP bars). Mater Struct 2020;53:1–15.
J Struct Eng 2022;148(8):04022089.
[19] Yoon YS, Yang JM, Min KH, Shin HO. Flexural strength and deflection
[3] Peng F, Deng J, Xue W. Design Provisions for Flexural Strength of Hybrid
characteristics of high-strength concrete beams with hybrid FRP and steel bar
Reinforced Concrete Beams with Fiber-Reinforced Polymer and Steel Bars. ACI
reinforcement. Special Publication 2011;275:1–22.
Struct J 2023;120(1).
[20] Nguyen DP, Dang VQ. Limiting reinforcement ratios for hybrid GFRP/steel
[4] Aiello MA, Ombres L. Structural performances of concrete beams with hybrid
reinforced concrete beams. Int J Eng Technol Innov 2021;11(1):1.
(fiber-reinforced polymer-steel) reinforcements. J Compos Constr 2002;6(2):
[21] Said M, Shanour AS, Mustafa TS, Abdel-Kareem AH, Khalil MM. Experimental
133–40.
flexural performance of concrete beams reinforced with an innovative hybrid bars.
[5] Leung HY, Balendran RV. Flexural behaviour of concrete beams internally
Eng Struct 2021;226:111348.
reinforced with GFRP rods and steel rebars. Struct Surv 2003;21(4):146–57.
[22] Xiao SH, Lin JX, Li LJ, Guo YC, Zeng JJ, Xie ZH, et al. Experimental study on
[6] Qu W, Zhang X, Huang H. Flexural behavior of concrete beams reinforced with
flexural behavior of concrete beam reinforced with GFRP and steel-fiber composite
hybrid (GFRP and steel) bars. J Compos Constr 2009;13(5):350–9.
bars. J Build Eng 2021;43:103087.
[7] Lau D, Pam HJ. Experimental study of hybrid FRP reinforced concrete beams. Eng
[23] Araba AM, Ashour AF. Flexural performance of hybrid GFRP-Steel reinforced
Struct 2010;32(12):3857–65.
concrete continuous beams. Compos B Eng 2018;154:321–36.
[8] Nguyen PD, Dang VH, Vu NA. Performance of concrete beams reinforced with
[24] Qu W, Zhang X, Huang H. Flexural behavior of concrete beams reinforced with
various ratios of hybrid GFRP/steel bars. Civil Eng J 2020;6(9):1652–69.
hybrid (GFRP and steel) bars. J Compos Constr 2009;13(5):350–9.
[9] Ge W, Wang Y, Ashour A, Lu W, Cao D. Flexural performance of concrete beams
[25] Maranan GB, Manalo AC, Benmokrane B, Karunasena W, Mendis P, Nguyen TQ.
reinforced with steel–FRP composite bars. Arch Civil Mech Eng 2020;20:1–17.
Flexural behavior of geopolymer-concrete beams longitudinally reinforced with
[10] Nachiappan, P., SmithaGopinath, A., Iyer, N.R. and Manju, T., 2014. Experimental
GFRP and steel hybrid reinforcements. Eng Struct 2019;182:141–52.
Studies on Hybrid Beam Reinforced with Steel and BFRP Bar.
[26] Yang Y, Pan D, Wu G, Cao D. A new design method of the equivalent stress–strain
[11] Unsal I, Tokgoz S, Cagatay IH, Dundar C. A study on load-deflection behavior of
relationship for hybrid (FRP bar and steel bar) reinforced concrete beams. Compos
two-span continuous concrete beams reinforced with GFRP and steel bars. Struct
Struct 2021;270:114099.
Eng Mech 2017;63(5):629–37.
[27] Zhang, J., Ge, W., Dai, H. and Tu, Y., 2011. Study on the flexural capacity of
[12] Akiel MS, El-Maaddawy T, El Refai A. Serviceability and moment redistribution of
concrete beam hybrid reinforced with FRP bars and steel bars. In Advances in FRP
continuous concrete members reinforced with hybrid steel-BFRP bars. Constr Build
Composites in Civil Engineering: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference
Mater 2018;175:672–81.
on FRP Composites in Civil Engineering (CICE 2010), Sep 27–29, 2010, Beijing,
[13] El Refai A, Abed F, Al-Rahmani A. Structural performance and serviceability of
China (pp. 304-307). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
concrete beams reinforced with hybrid (GFRP and steel) bars. Constr Build Mater
[28] Wang, X., Chen, Z., Ding, L., Shi, Y., Zhu, Z. and Wu, Z., 2021, October. Long-term
2015;96:518–29.
flexural behavior of concrete beams with hybrid FRP and steel reinforcements in
[14] Ruan X, Lu C, Xu K, Xuan G, Ni M. Flexural behavior and serviceability of concrete
simulated marine environment. In Structures (Vol. 33, pp. 4556-4567). Elsevier.
beams hybrid-reinforced with GFRP bars and steel bars. Compos Struct 2020;235:
[29] Yuan F, Hu R. Flexural behaviour of ECC and ECC–concrete composite beams
111772.
reinforced with hybrid FRP and steel bars. Adv Struct Eng 2021;24(15):3171–83.
[15] Xingyu G, Yiqing D, Jiwang J. Flexural behavior investigation of steel-GFRP
[30] Yinghao L, Yong Y. Arrangement of hybrid rebars on flexural behavior of HSC
hybrid-reinforced concrete beams based on experimental and numerical methods.
beams. Compos B Eng 2013;45(1):22–31.
Eng Struct 2020;206:110117.
[31] Sijavandi, K., Sharbatdar, M.K. and Kheyroddin, A., 2021, October. Experimental
evaluation of flexural behavior of high-performance fiber reinforced concrete

10
A. Tarawneh et al. Composite Structures 329 (2024) 117758

beams using GFRP and high strength steel bars. In Structures (Vol. 33, pp. 4256- COMMENTARY (ACI 440.1R-22),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
4268). Elsevier. MI, 88 pp.
[32] Almahmood H, Ashour A, Sheehan T. Flexural behaviour of hybrid steel-GFRP [38] MacGregor JG. Safety and Limit States Design for Reinforced Concrete. Can J Civ
reinforced concrete continuous T-beams. Compos Struct 2020;254:112802. Eng 1976;3(4):484–513.
[33] Araba, A.M., Zinkaah, O.H., Alhawat, M. and Ashour, A., 2023, January. [39] Bruce Ellingwood, Theodore Galambos, James MacGregor, and C. Allan Cornell,
Experimental tests of two span continuous concrete beams reinforced with hybrid Development of a Probability Based Load Criterion for American National Standard
GFRP-Steel bars. In Structures (Vol. 47, pp. 2485-2500). Elsevier. A58, NBS Special Publication 577, National Bureau of Standards, US Department of
[34] Tan, K. H., 1997, “Behavior of Hybrid FRP-Steel Reinforced Concrete Beams,” Commerce, Washington, DC, June 1980, 222 pp.
Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Non-Metallic (FRP) [40] Farrow CB, Klingner RE. Tensile capacity of single anchors in concrete: Evaluation
Reinforcement for Concrete Structures (FRPRCS-3), Japan Concrete Institute, of existing formulas on an LRFD basis. Struct J 1996;93(1):128–37.
Sapporo, Japan, pp. 487-494. [41] Szerszen, M. M., and Nowak, A. S., 2003, “Calibration of Design Code for Buildings
[35] Zhou B, Wu RY, Liu Y, Zhang X, Yin S. Flexural strength design of hybrid FRP-steel (ACI 318): Part 2—Reliability Analysis and Resistance Factors,” ACI Structural
reinforced concrete beams. Materials 2021;14(21):6400. Journal, V. 100, No. 3, May-June, pp. 383-391.
[36] ACI Committee 318, 2019, “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete [42] Tarawneh, A.N., Saleh, E., Dwairi, H.M. and Majdalaweyh, S.A., 2022, June.
(ACI 318-19) and Commentary,” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hill, MI, Design and strength reduction factors calibration of adhesive anchors embedded in
520 pp. thin concrete members. In Structures (Vol. 40, pp. 213-222). Elsevier.
[37] ACI Committee 440, 2022, “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete [43] Tarawneh AN, Saleh EF, Majdalaweyh SA. Reliability assessment and strength
Reinforced with Glass Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) Bars—CODE AND reduction factor calibration for screw anchors concrete breakout. ACI Struct J
2022;119(2):113–22.

11