AEI 2017 324

Reevaluating the Modified Shear Provision of CAN/CSA S806-12 for

Concrete Beams Reinforced with FRP Stirrups

O. ElMeligy1; A. M. El-Nemr2; and A. Deifalla3

1
Teaching Assistant, Civil Engineering Dept., Faculty of Engineering, British
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/10/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Univ. in Egypt, El Shorouk City, Cairo. E-mail: omar115517@bue.edu.eg

2
Assistant Professor in Material Engineering, Civil Engineering Dept., German
Univ. in Egypt, New Cairo City, Main Entrance El Tagamoa El Khames, Hotline
16482. E-mail: amr.elnemr@guc.edu.eg.
3
Assciate Professor in High El Obour Institute, El Obour City, Cairo. E-mail:
diffalaf@gmail.com
Abstract
The corrosion related problems does not concern only longitudinal
reinforcement but also transverse reinforcement. Thus, the FRP stirrups are used as
an alternative reinforcement for concrete beams. Shear design of concrete beams is
a main issue. The Canadian Standards Association CSA S806 (2012) proposed
shear design provision for the case of beams reinforced with FRP bars (fiber
reinforced polymer). In this paper, modified provision proposed by Deifalla et al.
(2014) was introduced. The aim of this study is to validate this provision in
comparison with the original CSA-S806 (2012) using experimental database exist
in this field. The experimental database compiled a total of 123 concrete beams
with FRP stirrups tested under shear. Both the modified and CSA-S806 (2012)
design provision were calculated and compared with that measured during testing.
From the results, the proposed modification provides more accurate and better
performance compared to that of the CSA-S806 (2012) provision.

INTRODUCTION
Corrosion of steel is one major problem in causing failure of concrete
structure. Rehabilitation and repair for such a failure is very costly. Thus, there is a
trend to avoid corrosion by using the new innovative material FRP bars (Fiber
Reinforced Polymer). The FRP bars have been used for a decade as a replacement
for longitudinal steel reinforcement such as slabs in parking garage, beam
elements, etc. However, the corrosion of steel does not only hit the longitudinal
reinforcement but also, the transverse ones, too. Thus, the structural element loses
its integrity and stiffness causing a catastrophic failure.
Consequently, codes and guidelines assign a procedure on how to design the
FRP shear stirrups by adopting the provisions assigned for steel transverse
reinforcement. The equations mainly dependent on the factors affecting shear
strength of any structure element such as spacing between stirrups, the shear
cracking angle, area of stirrups, and finally; compressive strength of concrete strut.
However, the difference in mechanical properties between FRP and steel
transverse reinforcement were not mostly encountered.

© ASCE

AEI 2017
 AEI 2017 325

Here in, the study is concerned only about shear of simple beam reinforced
with FRP bars; longitudinally and transversely. The paper verifies the accuracy of
the shear equations provided by CSA S806 (2012), and Modified CSA S806 2012
equation by Deifalla et al. (2014). Recently, Razaqpur and Spadea (2014)
conducted a comparison between the CSA S806 (2012), several other codes and
guidelines (CSA S6, ACI 440, JSCE, and the Italian CNR guidelines) over
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/10/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

database of 98 duplicate specimens without shear reinforcement and 117

specimens with shear reinforcement including 31 duplicate specimens. They
observed that CSA S806 (2012) provision estimates the shear forces accurately
than provisions adopted by CSA S6, ACI 440, JSCE, and the Italian CNR
guidelines.
The analysis, also, showed that the angle of diagonal concrete strut and its
compressive strength are the two key parameters influencing the shear
reinforcement. Moreover, the study spotted that the assumption of the diagonal
concrete strut angle by 45 ° is not accurately adequate. In fact, the results of the
analysis confirmed that the angle θ° can deviate from 45° to an angle even higher
than 60°.Thus, the failure mode could be shifted from rupture of FRP shear
reinforcement to crushing of concrete strut. They, also, examined the modified
compression filed theory (MCFT) adopted by CAN/CSA S6 and developed by
Bentz et al. (2006), to evaluate the angle θ°. The MCFT approach suggested that
the angle θ° should be function of spacing between stirrups, area of stirrups and
the compressive strength of the concrete strut. They observed that evaluating angle
θ° using MCFT approach could lead to better prediction of the shear strength
provided by concrete and FRP stirrups.
The Compression Field Theory (CFT) was first developed by Collins et al.
(1997). The idea of theory is based on the influence of longitudinal reinforcement
on shear stress at failure. They stated that as the longitudinal strains increases the
shear strains decreases causing rapid failure of shear stirrups. Thus, the effect of
longitudinal reinforcement on shear is more pronounced when its ratio is lowered.
The same findings were observed by Bentz et al. (2006). They noticed that CSA
A23.4 (2004), shear provision for steel reinforced members; values are in good
agreement with the results of the 11 concrete beams reinforced with FRP stirrups
tested under shear loading. They, also, deduced that using multiple layer of
longitudinal FRP reinforcement protects the weak bent point in FRP stirrups. On
the other hand, they set an upper strain limit for FRP stirrups to avoid sudden
rupture of stirrups.
Deifalla et al. (2014) suggested a modification on the CSA S806 (2012)
provision for estimating the angle θ° of concrete beams reinforced with GFRP
transverse reinforcement under torsion. They related the strain of FRP stirrups
used for estimating the angle θ° to that of steel to consider the difference in
mechanical properties. Thus, this study was held to reevaluate the CSA S806
(2012) shear design provisions and explore the newly modification developed by
Deifalla et al. (2014).

© ASCE

AEI 2017
 AEI 2017 326

The sheaar strength was

w predicted d by CSA S8806 (2012) aas well as thhe modified
equation
e developed by y Deifalla et al. (2014). Then, compared with the
experimental
e l results connducted by previous reesearchers [N Nagasaka ett al. 1993;
Maruyama
M annd Zhao 199 94; Okamoto o et al. 19944; Nakamuraa and Higai 11995; Zhao
et
e al. 1995; Maruyama
M annd Zhao 19996; Vijay et aal. 1996; Alssayed 1998; Duranovic
et
e al. 1997; Shehata
S et al. 2000; Alkhhrdaji et al. 22001; Nieweels 2008; Ascione et al.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/10/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

2010;
2 Bentz et al. 2010; Mahmoud
M 2014; Krall eet al. 2014]. IIt should be mentioned
th
hat these exxperimental results weree collected by Razaqpuur and Spaddea (2014).
They
T conduccted a data base for both b beam rreinforced w with or withhout shear
reinforcemen nt, as mentio oned earlierr. However, this study considered only about
beam
b reinforrced with sheear reinforceement.
EXPERIME
E ENTAL DAT
TABASE PR
ROFILE
Thee data base en
ncountered, heerein; includees over 123 cooncrete beamms reinforced
with longituudinal and trransverse FR RP reinforcem ment. The bbeams were tested and
nt researcherss as mentioneed earlier andd collected byy Razaqpur
evaluated thrrough differen
and Spadeaa (2014). Th hese beams were exam mined underr different method of
loading, as shown in Figure
F 1 wh hich represennts the totall percentagee of beams
tested in three-point ben
nding (3PB),, four-point bbending (4P
PB), shear tesst (ST) and
finally unsymmetrical thhree-point beending (U3PPB).
Alsso, Figure 2 shows the percentage of different types of fibber (GFRP,
CFRP, and AFRP) used in both longitudinaal and transsverse reeinnforcement.
While, Figu
ure 3 shows the differen
nt transversee reinforcemeent ratio as well as the
spacing betw
ween stirrups used.
Finaally, Figure 4 shows thee different rranges of sheear span to depth ratio
(a/d) and concrete
c commpressive sttrength whicch influencee the crushhing of the
concrete stru
ut directly.
U3PB
U
2% ST
12%
1
3PB
17%

4PB
69%

Figure 1. Percentages of
o tested beeams under several load
ding conditiion: three-
point bendiing (3PB), four-point
f bending
b (4P
PB), shear ttest (ST) an
nd finally;
unsymmetrrical three-p
point bendinng (U3PB)

© ASCE

AEI 2017
 AEI 2017 327

38% 24%
51% 41%
8% 38%
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/10/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

CFRP AFRP GFRP CFRP AFRP GFRP

(a) (b)
Figure 2. Percentages of tested beams with various FRP types used as: (a)
transverse reinforcement; (b) longitudinal reinforcement.
35
20
Number of Specimens

30

Number of Specimens
25
15
20
15
10
10
5
5
0
0
100-150 150-200 >200
Ranges for Strirrup Spacings, (mm)
Range of Transverse RFT ratio

(a) (b)
Figure 3. Number of tested beams with different ranges of: (a) transverse
reinforcement ratio; (b) spacing of stirrups.
70
Number of Specimens

50
60
Number of Specimens

40 50
30 40
20 30
10 20
10
0
0
<25 25-30 30-35 35-40 40-45 45-50 >50
Range of a/d Range of Concrete compressive strength,
(MPa)

(a) (b)
Figure 4. Number of tested beams with different ranges of: (a) a/d ratio; (b)
concrete compressive strength.

© ASCE

AEI 2017
 AEI 2017 328

Table 1 summarized then results of the tested beams included in this

analysis with reference to each researcher. Moreover, the table also includes the
ranges of longitudinal, transverse reinforcement ratio and concrete strength, in
addition to, concrete strength and number of beams tested.

Table 1. Experimental database profile

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/10/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Number
Beam Longitudinal Transversal Concrete
of
Study depth rft ratio rft ratio strength
tested
(mm) (%) (%) (MPa)
beams
Nagasaka et al.
24 300 1.9 0.50-1.48 22.6-39.2
(1993)
Maruyama and
9 300 0.55-2.11 0.12-0.24 30.5-38.3
Zhao (1994)
Okamoto et al.
11 300 1.71-1.90 0.51-1.50 28.9-37.7
(1994)
Nakamura and
3 300 1.61 0.18-0.35 33.4-35.4
Higai (1995)
Zhao et al.
5 300 1.51-3.03 0.42 34.3
(1995)
Maruyama and 300-
4 1.04 0.43-0.86 29.5-34
Zhao (1996) 800
Vijay et al.
4 300 0.67-1.43 0.56-0.83 31-44.8
(1996)
Alsayed (1998) 2 360 1.24-1.33 0.21-0.40 35.5-35.7
Duranovic et al.
2 250 1.36 0.17 39.8
(1997)
Shehata et al.
2 560 1.25 0.36-1.07 50
(2000)
Alkhrdaji et al.
4 330 1.19-2.30 0.39-0.52 24.1-25.2
(2001)
500-
Niewels (2008) 7 3.25-3.98 0.11-0.54 29.1-48.3
545
Ascione et al. 150-
6 0.62-1.54 0.28 20-25.4
(2010) 200
Bentz et al. 500-
3 0.51-2.36 0.09 35-46
(2010) 1000
Mahmoud, k. and
El Salakawy, E., 3 300 1.20 0.21-0.85 42
(2013)
Krall et al. 330-
3 1.82-2.51 0.51-2.23 56.5
(2014) 350

CSA STANDARD S806 (2012) SHEAR DESIGN PROVISION

The CSA S806 (2012) specifies that the normal shear resistance, Vr, of
FRP reinforced concrete members can be computed as
= + ≤ 0.22 (1)

© ASCE

AEI 2017
 AEI 2017 329

Where Vr is the total factored shear resistance of the beam element, while, Vc, VsF
are factored shear resistance provided by concrete and FRP shear reinforcement,
respectively. While, f’c, bw, dv accounts for specified compressive strength of
concrete, minimum effective web width and effective shear depth, which can be
taken as the greater of 0.9 d or 0.72 h, where, h is the height of a member and d
represents the distance from the extreme compression fibre to the centroid of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/10/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

longitudinal tension force.

For section having an effective depth not exceeding 300 mm and with no axial
loading action on them, the Vc should be determined using the following Eq. (2)

= 0.05 ( ) (2)
Where λ is the concrete density factor and is 1.0 for normal concrete. φc is the
material resistance factor taken by 1.0 considering the experimental laboratory
results. and are factors accounting for the effects of moment to shear ratio
and longitudinal reinforcement rigidity, respectively, on the shear strength of the
section under consideration and are given as Eq. (3)

= (3)

=1+ (4)
Where ρFl, EFl are the longitudinal FRP reinforcement ratio and modulus of
elasticity. While, Mf and Vf refer to the factored moment, and shear forces acting
on the section of interest.
However, the value of Vc calculated by Eqs. (2) should not be greater than
0.2 nor less than 0.11 , and should not be taken greater than
60 MPa.
For members with (a/d) or more generally less than 2.5, the value of Vc
shall be multiplied by the factor ka to account for shear resistance enhancement by
arch effect (Park and Paulay 1975):
.
= ; ℎ 1.0 ≤ ≤ 2.5 (5)

To account for the size effect, for members with effective depth greater
than 300 mm and with less transverse shear reinforcement than Av,min, where
Av,min can be determined by the following Eq. (6)

, = 0.07 (6)
.

As, Av,min is the minimum area of transverse FRP shear reinforcement, s is the
spacing of shear reinforcement, measured parallel to the longitudinal axis of the
member, and, fFu is ultimate strength of FRP reinforcement. Then, the value of Vc
is reduced by a factor of ks, such that:

© ASCE

AEI 2017
 AEI 2017 330

=( )≤1 (7)
Where the d is in mm
For members with FRP stirrups perpendicular to the member axis the VSF
is calculated using the following Eqs. 8 to 10
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/10/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

.
= (8)
While, θ is the angle of the inclination of concrete compression strut that can be
determined as following, Eq. (9)
= 30 + 7000 (9)
Where, is the longitudinal strain at mid-depth of the section and can be
calculated by Eq. (10)
. ( )
= = (10)

Neglecting Nf (i.e. Axial force (+ve) acting on the section of interest).

Where, AF and AFv are the area of FRP tension reinforcement and area of FRP
shear reinforcement perpendicular to the axis of a member within the distance, s,
consequently. Finally, a represents the shear span of the member
However, the strain should be limited to maximum stress, fv which is taken
as the smaller values of 0.005 Ef, 0.4 Ffu, or 1200 MPa. It should be mentioned
here that the spacing between stirrups, s, is limited to 0.9 d cot θ in order to
consider the influence of the inclination of diagonal struts on stirrups
effectiveness. Thus, the maximum stress, fv, emphasizes the average stress in the
stirrups crossing the diagonal shear crack.

MODIFIED CSA STANDARD S806 (2012) SHEAR DESIGN PROVISION

Deifalla et al. (2014) proposed an alternative form for Eq. (9) which used
to determine the angle of inclination of concrete compression strut. The original
equation (Eq. 9) is the same one used in predicting the shear strength provided for
the transverse steel reinforcement. It mainly assumes working on a two
dimensional space and that the beam was subjected to shear forces under this
condition. Therefore, Mohr circle of strain was constructed (ASCE-ACI, 2013), to
calculate the angle (θ) through Eq. (11):
tan = (11)

Where ε2, and εt are the principal diagonal compressive and transversal strains,
respectively.
In the original derivation where Eq. (9) is established, ε2 was taken by
0.002 at which the concrete crushing occur (Bentz et al., 2006). Thus, the angle
(θ) is dependent on the ratio between the longitudinal strain and the transversal

© ASCE

AEI 2017
 AEI 2017 331

strain. Since Eq. (9) only considered the strain of steel in the longitudinal
direction; which yields at a strain value of 0.002, then, the difference between the
FRP stirrups and the steel stirrups should be encountered. Assuming the above
mentioned two concepts, then after, Eq. (12) should be imposed into Eq. (9):
= (12)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/10/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Where, EFt and Es are the modulus of elasticity of FRP transversal reinforcement and
that of steel reinforcement, while, εtsteel is the transversal steel strain considered in
the original derivation. Rearranging the Eq. (12), such that:

= (13)

Since the steel stirrup strain was eliminated from Eq. (9), therefore, in the
modified equation, a factor was added encountering the difference in modulus of
elasticity between the FRP and steel. Thus, the angle of inclination of concrete
compression strut is calculated through the presented Eq. (14)

= 30 + 7000 (14)

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

For all beams, the ultimate shear was predicted using the CSA S806 (2012)
and the modified one by Deifalla et al. (2014). Then, the ratio between the
measured and predicted ultimate shear was calculated.
Table 2 shows the average and coefficient of variation for all beams included in
this study, as summarized earlier in Table 1. The results shows an average
prediction value of 1.75 for CSA S806 (2012), and 1.10 for the modified one.
Thus, the prediction of ultimate shear strength using CSA S806 (2012) is
very conservative, while, the proposed modification evaluated the ultimate shear
strength more accurately. This assures the better uses of FRP stirrups rather than
overestimating the amount of FRP stirrups required to resist the shear force
resulting from several loading condition. Figures 5 and 6 show the
experimentally measured ultimate shear versus that calculated using the CSA
S806 (2012) and the modified one, respectively. Figure 5 confirms the
conservativeness of predicted ultimate shear versus the experimental ones, on the
other hand, Figure 6 ensure the validity of the proposed modification by Deifalla
et al. (2014).
Nevertheless, the coefficient of variation values are 37% for CSA S806
(2012) and 30% for modified one, respectively. This ensures that further
investigation required confirming the accuracy and the validity of the proposed
one.

© ASCE

AEI 2017
 AEI 2017 332

Table 2. Measured and predicted shear using the CSA with and without
modification.
Method Average Coefficient of variation
(experimental/calculate
d)
CSA S806 (2012) 1.75 37 %
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/10/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Modified CSA S806 (Deifalla et al. 1.10 30 %

2014)

550
Measured Ultimate Shear, (kN)

500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
Predicted Ultimate Shear, (kN)

Figure 5. Measured versus calculated ultimate shear using the CSA S806
(2012).

550
500
VMeasured Ultimate Shear, (kN)

450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
Predicted Ultimate Shear, (kN)

Figure 6. Measured versus calculated ultimate shear using the modified-CSA

S806 (Deifalla et al. 2015).

© ASCE

AEI 2017
 AEI 2017 333

CONCLUSION
With increased use of FRP reinforcement longitudinally and transversely due to
corrosion of steel reinforcement, there is a need to develop and examine the provision
set for flexural and shear design of concrete elements reinforced with FRP bars and
stirrups. Most of these provisions were adopted from those used for designing
concrete element reinforced with steel bars.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/10/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

This paper discusses the shear design provisions adopted by CSA S806 (2012)
for concrete beams reinforced with FRP reinforcements as well as the proposed
modification for CSA S806 (2012) developed by Deifalla et al. (2014).
The study also validated the accuracy of CSA S806 (2012) and the modified
ones through a data base of 123 simple supported beams tested by several
researchers. The beams included different fiber types, longitudinal and transverse
FRP reinforcement ratio as well as different concrete compressive test and shear span
to depth ratio, (a/d), in addition to, varying stirrups spacing. Then after, the results of
the predicted ultimate shear using CSA S806 (2012) and modified equations were
compared versus the experimental values. The results show an average value of 1.75
and 1.10, respectively for CSA S806 (2012) and modified ones.
Furthermore, the coefficient of variation values is 37% and 30 %, consequently.
Thus, the modified equation provides better prediction than that CSA S806 (2012).

RECOMENDATION
Further investigation is recommended to validate the accuracy of the used CSA
S806 (2012) provision as well as the proposed modification for better accuracy and
safer design for professional practitioner.

REFERENCES

Alkhrdaji, T., Wideman, M., Belarbi, A., and Nanni, A. (2001). “Shear strength of
RC beams and slabs.” CCC2001, J. Figueiras, L. Juvandes, and R. Faria,
eds., A.A. Balkema Publishers, Netherlands, 409–414.
Alsayed, S. H. (1998). “Flexural behavior of concrete beams reinforced with
GFRP bars.” Cem. Concr. Compos., 20(1), 1–11.
American Concrete Institute (ACI). (2006). “Guide for the design and construction
of concrete reinforced with FRP bars.” ACI 440.1R-06, Farmington Hills,
MI.
ASCE-ACI Committee 445 on shear and torsion, (2013), Report on Torsion in
Structural Concrete. Reported by Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445, ACI
445.1R-12, April 2013, ISBN-13: 978-0-87031-810-8, ISBN: 0-87031-
810-1: 80 pp.
Ascione, L., Mancusi, G., and Spadea, S. (2010). “Flexural behavior of concrete
beams reinforced with GFRP bars.” Strain, 46(5), 460–469.
Bentz, E C, Vecchio, J. F. and Collins, M P, (2006), “Simplified Modified Field
Theory for Calculating Shear strength of Reinforced Concrete Elements.”
ACI Structural Engineering Journal, July-August, 103-S65: 614-624.

© ASCE

AEI 2017
 AEI 2017 334

Bentz, E. C., Massam, L., and Collins, M. P. (2010). “Shear strength of large
concrete members with FRP reinforcement.” J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/
(ASCE) CC.1943-5614.0000108, 637–646.
Canadian Standards Association (CSA) (2006), “Canadian Highway Bridge design
code.” CSA S6-06, Toronto.
Canadian Standards Association (CSA) (2012), “Design and Construction of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/10/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Buildings Components with Fiber-Reinforced Polymers.” CSA S806-12,

Toronto.
Canadian Standards Association (CSA). (2004), “Design of concrete structures for
buildings.” CSA A23.3-04, Toronto.
Collins, M. P., and Mitchell, D. (1997). “Prestressed concrete structures,”
Response, Toronto.
Deifalla, A., Khalil, M., and Abdelrahman, A. (2014). "Simplified Model for the
Torsional Strength of Concrete Beams with GFRP Stirrups." J. Compos.
Constr., 10.1061/ (ASCE) CC.1943-5614.0000498, 04014032.
Duranovic, N., Pilakoutas, K., and Waldron, P. (1997). “Tests on concrete beams
reinforced with glass fiber reinforced plastic bars.” FRPRCS-3, Japan
Concrete Institute, Sapporo, Japan, 479–486.
Italian Research Council. (2007). “Guide for the design and construction of
concrete structures reinforced with fiber-reinforced polymer bars.” CNR
DT-203/2006, Rome.
Japan Society of Civil Engineering (JSCE). (1997). “Recommendation for design
and construction of concrete structures using continuous fiber reinforcing
materials.” Tokyo.
Krall, M. and Polak, M. (2014), “Tests on concrete beams with GFRP flexural and
shear reinforcements.” The 7th international conference on FRP composites
in civil engineering, IIFC: 6 pp.
Mahmoud, K. and El-Salakawy, E. (2013) "Shear Strength of GFRP-Reinforced
Concrete Continuous Beams with Minimum Transverse Reinforcement." J.
Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000406,
04013018.Shear strength of GFRP-reinforced concrete continuous beams.”
The 7th international conference on FRP composites in civil engineering,
IIFC: 6 pp.
Maruyama, K., and Zhao, W. J. (1994). “Flexural and shear behavior of concrete
beams reinforced with FRP rods.” Corrosion and corrosion protection of
steel in concrete, R. N. Swamy, ed., Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield,
UK, 1330–1339.
Maruyama, K., and Zhao, W. J. (1994). “Flexural and shear behavior of concrete
beams reinforced with FRP rods.” Corrosion and corrosion protection of
steel in concrete, R. N. Swamy, ed., Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield,
UK, 1330–1339.
Maruyama, K., and Zhao, W. J. (1996). “Size effect in shear behavior of FRP
reinforced concrete beams.” 2nd Int. Conf. on Advanced Composite
Materials in Bridges and Structures, M. El-Badry, ed., ACMBS, 227–234.

© ASCE

AEI 2017
 AEI 2017 335

Nagasaka, T., Fukuyama, H., and Tanigaki, M., (1993), “Shear performance of
concrete beams reinforced with FRP stirrups.” FRPRCS-1, A. Nanni and C.
W. Dolan, eds., American Concrete Institute, Vancouver, Canada: 789–
805.
Nakamura, H., and Higai, T. (1995). “Evaluation of shear strength of concrete
beams reinforced with FRP.” Concrete Libr. JSCE, 26, 111–123.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/10/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Niewels, J. (2008). “Zum tragverhalten von botonbauteilen mit

faserverbundkunststoff-bewerhung.” Ph.D. dissertation, Aachen Univ.,
Germany.
Okamoto, T., Nagasaka, T., and Tanigaki, M. (1994), “Shear capacity of concrete
beams using FRP reinforcement.” J. Struct. Constr. Eng., 455: 127–136.
Park, R., and Paulay, T. (1975). Reinforced concrete structures, Wiley, New York.
Razaqpur, A. and Spadea, S. (2014). "Shear Strength of FRP Reinforced Concrete
Members with Stirrups." J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/ (ASCE) CC.1943-
5614.0000483, 04014025.
Shehata, E., Morphy, R., and Rizkalla, S. (2000). “Fibre reinforced polymer shear
reinforcement for concrete members: Behaviour and design guidelines.”
Can. J. Civ. Eng., 27(5), 859–872.
Vijay, P. V., Kumar, S. V., and GangRao, H. V. S. (1996). “Shear and ductility
behavior of concrete beams reinforced with GFRP rebars.” Proc., 2nd Int.
Conf. on Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges and Structures, M. El-
Badry, ed., ACMBS, 217–226.
Zhao, W. J., Maruyama, K., and Suzuky, H. (1995). “Shear behaviors of concrete
beams reinforced by FRP rods as longitudinal and shear reinforcement.”
Proc., FRPRCS-2, Gent, 352–359.

© ASCE

AEI 2017