BERAVIOR OF PRECRACKED RC BEAMS STRENGTHENED WITH

CARBON FRP SHEETS

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Griffith University on 07/30/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

By Marco Arduini! and Antonio Nanni/ Member, ASCE

ABSTRACT: Experimental data obtained from strengthened, precracked, reinforced concrete (RC) specimens
are presented together with the results of material characterization. Strengthening was attained with the adhesion
of carbon fiber-reinforced plastic (CFRP) sheets to the concrete surface. The CFRP was applied as in situ (Le.,
working under the beam). Several variables were investigated, including: two CFRP material systems, two
concrete surface preparations, two RC cross sections, and the number and location of CFRP plies. For two
specimens, the presence of applied load (simulating the total service load) as well as external prestressing during
the adhesion of the CFRP reinforcement, were investigated. It is shown that the effect of CFRP strengthening
was considerable, but the effect of some of the tested variables was modest. An existing analytical model has
been extended to simulate the load-deflection behavior as well as the failure mode of the precracked RC specimens. Different failure mechanisms from ductile to brittle were simulated and verified, adopting the mechanical
properties of the constituent materials obtained via standard tests or using a simple test for the concrete-adhesive
interface.

INTRODUCTION
The need for strengthening (or stiffening of) reinforced concrete (RC) and prestressed concrete (PC) structures is becoming more apparent, particularly when there is an increase in
load requirements, a change in use, a degradation problem, or
some design/construction defects. Potential solutions range
from replacement of the structure to strengthening with a variety of techniques. Plate bonding is one of them and advanced
composites, such as fiber-reinforced plastic (FRP), are just one
type of material that can be used in this respect. Plates in the
fonn of flexible carbon FRP (CFRP) sheets, to be externally
bonded to the concrete surfaces, were considered in this paper.
They are made of unidirectional dry or preimpregnated (prepreg) fibers and are installed with a technique known as manuallayup.
The use of FRP materials for structural repair presents several advantages and had been recently investigated all over
the world (Saadatmanesh and Ehsani 1991a, b; Chajes et ai.
1994; Meier and Winistorfer 1995; Varastehpour and Hemelin 1995; Baaza et ai. 1996; Nakamura et ai. 1996; Crasto
et ai. 1996; CEB-FIP 1993; Arduini et aI., in press, 1997).
The writers have so far concentrated their investigations on
the strengthening of virgin RC beams. It has also been shown
that, as a result of the FRP application, the mode of failure
of a flexural member may change from ductile to brittle. For
example, shear failure in concrete may substantially reduce
the nominal flexural capacity expected with computations using standard design equations. Changing the thickness of the
FRP sheet, changing its bonded length, or adding shear reinforcement, significantly modifies the crack distribution
along the beam and changes the failure mechanism (Arduini
et aI., in press, 1997). Possible failure mechanisms are: FRP
rupture, concrete crushing, shear failure, peeling at the adhesive-concrete interface, and so on (Arduini et aI., in press,
1997).
In this paper, experimental and analytical results are pre-

sented for the case of beams precracked and subsequently

strengthened with CFRP sheets. Comparison with control and
non-precracked beams is presented. The experimental program
consists of four-point bending tests as well as coupon tests to
characterize material properties including the concrete-adhesive interface. Two types of unidirectional CFRP material systems were used with number of plies varying from one to
three. The direction of the fibers was in most cases arranged
parallel to the axis of the beam (longitudinal direction or 0)
in order to act as flexural reinforcement. In one case, CFRP
sheets were wrapped around three sides of the beam (0 and
90) for shear reinforcement and anchorage of the longitudinal
sheets. Two concrete cross sections were investigated to represent the case of shallow and deep sections. Two types of
concrete surface preparation were used in order to understand
the influence of this parameter on the failure mode. Finally,
two beams were strengthened while carrying an applied load
representing the expected service load of the member. The
latter of these beams was also subjected to external posttensioning during strengthening with the intent to compensate for
the deflection due to service load.
For the analytical results, a simulation is offered using a
model previously presented by Arduini et al. (1993). This
model has been modified to include the effects of precracking,
unloading, repairing, and the final loading cycle. The model
takes into account the nonlinear properties of concrete in compression, the tensile strength of concrete, and the concreteadhesive interface properties.

~MSert..

'Tech. Ofcr. , DISTART, Univ. of Bologna, Viale Risorgimento 2,

40100 Bologna, Italy.
2Prof., Dept. of Arch. Engrg., Pennsylvania State Univ., 104 Engrg.
Unit A, Univ. Park, PA 16802.
Note. Discussion open until October I, 1997. To extend the closing
date one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager
of Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and
possible publication on September 3, 1996. This paper is part of the
Journal of Composites for Construction, Vol. I, No.2, May, 1997.
ASCE, ISSN 1090-0268/97/0002-0063-0070/$4.00 + $.50 per page.
Paper No. 14043.

r;::::::;:=::;:::::::;::::=;::::::::;:=::;::=~;::tfso
220

4 16

So
----IllOoi
-----1

FIG. 1.

FRP meet
SOrt60 +lSO

+-bp -f

Specimen Dimensions and Test setup in mm (25.4 mm

= 1 In.)
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION 1 MAY 1997/63

J. Compos. Constr., 1997, 1(2): 63-70

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Griffith University on 07/30/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

TABLE 1
Beam
code
(1 )

Surface
preparation
(2)

Beam
condition
(3)

SI
SM2
SM3
SM4
SM5
SM6
ST2
ST3
ST4
Ml
MM2
MM3
MM4
MM5
MT2
MT3
MT4
MT5

none
sanding
sanding
sand blasting
sand blasting
sanding
sanding
sand blasting
sand blasting
none
sanding
sand blasting
sanding
sand blasting
sanding
sand blasting
sand blasting
sand blasting

virgin
virgin
precracked
virgin
virgin
precracked
precracked
virgin
virgin
virgin
precracked
precracked
precracked
virgin
precracked
precracked
precracked
precracked

FRP Reinforcement Characteristics and Surface Preparation

Ip
(mm)
(4)

bp
(mm)
(5)

FRP
type
(6)

500
500
500
500
450
500
500
500

300
300
300
140
300
300
300
300

M
M
M
M
M
T1
T1
T5

950
950
850
850
950
950
950
950

150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150

M
M
M
M
Tl
Tl
Tl
T1

CFRP strengthening
(7)

none
one ply at the bottom
one ply at the bottom
one ply at the bottom
one ply at the bottom
two plies at the bottom
one ply at the bottom
one ply at the bottom
one ply at the bottom
none
one ply at the bottom
one ply at the bottom
one ply at the bottom
two plies at the bottom (0) + one ply on the sides (0 and 90)
one ply at the bottom
one ply at the bottom
vertical load, one ply at the bottom
vertical load + external prestress, one ply at the bottom

Note: 1.0 in. - 25.4 mm.

RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The study shows that it is possible to strengthen precracked
RC flexural members and to obtain similar results to the case
of strengthened virgin specimens. It is also possible to predict
the load-deflection behavior of precracked members using an
analytical model. The study shows that the failure mode of the
flexural member may be altered by strengthening and become
brittle. The parameters that affect the failure mechanisms are
recognized and discussed.

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
RC Specimen Characteristics
The total number of test specimens was 18: nine were rectangular RC short-length beams (S series) with details and
dimensions as shown in Fig. 1(a), and nine were rectangular
RC medium-length beams (M series) with details and dimensions as shown in Fig. l(b). The S series consisted of specimens intended to simulate the geometry of a shallow beam
with a height-to-width ratio (h/b) equal to 0.5, whereas the M
series was intended to simulate a deeper section geometry (hi
b = 2.0). The test span and the position of the loading knives
for the two series were such to maintain a similar shear spanto-reinforcement depth (aid) ratio (i.e., 3.8 for s series and 3.5
for m Series). All specimens were tested under four-point loading.
All beams were constructed at a precast plant using conventional fabrication, curing, and transportation techniques.
The longitudinal reinforcement consisted of four 12 mm (0.47
in.) and four 16 mm (0.63 in.) deformed steel bars for series
Sand M, respectively. All specimens used 6 mm (0.24 in.)
deformed steel stirrups, equally spaced at 100 mm (5.9 in.).

sander. Since the concrete surface was of good quality, the

sander removed only the very superficial particles and
smoothed the sharp corners. Dry sand blasting was performed
by a subcontractor using industrial-grade equipment. Fine particles and paste were removed leaving the coarser aggregate
(i.e., natural riverbed gravel) exposed. The average depth of
material removal around the coarse aggregate was 1 mm (0.04
in.). Surface preparation was completed on the designated
specimens prior to bonding of the sheets.
As indicated in Table 1, column 3, a number of beams were
preloaded (precracked) prior to the application of the FRP
sheet(s). The preloading was applied using the same configuration of the test to failure [Fig. l(a, b)] and the applied load
was equal to 30% of the nominal capacity of the member (i.e.,
32 and 44 leN = 7,184 and 9,879 lb for Sand M series, respectively). This load level was intended to simulate a reasonable service condition and allowed the formation of three to
four cracks in the region of constant moment.
In the case of specimens MT4 and MT5, the preload was
maintained on the specimen at the time of application of the
FRP. The device to maintain the load consisted of threaded
bars anchored to the specimen and the base of testing bed. In
the case of MT5, external posttensioning was also applied to
the beam while the preload was acting on it, so that the specimen would recover almost entirely its midspan deflection (see
Fig. 2). These two specimens are intended to simulate the

CFRP Strengthening
Table 1 shows FRP reinforcement characteristics and surface preparation for all specimens. The code used to identify
each specimen (column 1) consists of two letters and a number. The first letter (S or M) indicates the beam series and the
second letter (M or T) indicates the FRP material system (to
be discussed later).
As indicated in Table 1, column 2, the concrete surface for
the specimens to be strengthened with CFRP was prepared by
either sanding or sand blasting. The first technique was a light
surface cleaning performed by a technician with a power

FIG. 2. Specimen MT5 Ready for Strengthening with Applied

Service Load and Posttensioning

64/ JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION / MAY 1997

J. Compos. Constr., 1997, 1(2): 63-70

TABLE 2

Mechanical Properties of Materials Used for Experimental Program

f~

Material
(1 )

E
(GPa)
(2)

v
(3)

Concrete
Steel
Adhesive-M
CFRP-M sheet
Adhesive-T
CFRP-Tl sheet
CFRP-T5 sheet

27
200
2
235
2
235
380

0.2
0.3
0.38
not applicable
0.35
not applicable
not applicable

fy
(MPa)
(5)

f,

(MPa)
(6)

(%)
(7)

not applicable
550
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable

2.7
640
37
3,510
49
3,480
2,940

0.05
20
1.5
1.5
4.8
1.5
0.8

(MPa)
(4)

not
not
not
not
not
not

36
applicable
applicable
applicable
applicable
applicable
applicable

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Griffith University on 07/30/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Note: 1.0 ksi = 6.985 MPa, 1.0 Msi = 6.985 GPa.

practical cases where strengthening is performed without removing the service load and the resulting deflection is or is
not compensated for.
Beams S 1 and M 1 were tested to failure without bonded
FRP sheets (control specimens). Unidirectional CFRP sheets
were used to strengthen the remaining beams. The sheets were
applied following the specifications of the material system
manufacturers. This included compliance with resin proportioning, mixing, application, and curing. The typical sequence
of operations for manual layup was: application of a surface
primer, application of the first layer of impregnating resin, application of the sheet (ply), removal of the paper backing, and
application of the second layer of impregnating resin. The last
two operations were repeated in the base of multiple plies.
Adhesion of the FRP sheets was conducted by working under
the specimen as it would be done in the field for the repair of
the soffit of a flexural element. No particular problems were
encountered during manual layup installation. After seven
days of resin curing, the beams were tested to failure.
Table 1, columns 4-6, presents the length, width, and type
of FRP for each beam tested. For all specimens, but two, of
series S, bonded length (lp) and width (b p ) were kept constant
at 500 and 30D mm (19.7 and 11.8 in.). For specimen SM5,
the sheet width was reduced to 140 mm (5.5 in.) and, for
specimen SM6, the sheet length was reduced to 450 mm (17.7
in.). For all specimens, but two, of series M, bonded length
(lp) and width (bp) were kept constant at 950 and 150 mm
(37.4 and 5.9 in.). For specimens MM4 and MM5, the sheet
length was reduced to 850 mm (33.5 in.). Two FRP material
systems were used and are identified as M and T. The first
material system (M) consists of a prepreg carbon fiber sheet,
whereas the second consists of a dry carbon fiber sheet. Furdebonding at concrete-adhesive interface

F/2~n".
1'?'l:--_:=\~__.C..__...............~Od".
:zs:

thermore, for the T system, two fiber types were considered,

Tl and T5, with T5 being the high elastic modulus fiber (see
Table 2).
Column 7 in Table 1 indicates the number of plies and the
direction of the fibers with respect to the longitudinal axis of
the beam. The reinforcement schemes and the typical failure
mechanisms observed for each beam type are also reported in
Fig. 3. For specimens MT4 and MT5, the special loading condition while strengthening is indicated in the table.

Mechanical Properties
Table 2 shows the mechanical properties of the constituent
materials (i.e., concrete, steel reinforcing bars, adhesives, and
CFRP sheets) as obtained experimentally or assumed. With
reference to Table 2, the following symbols and experimental
procedures were used:
E = Young's modulus derived from direct load and strain

measurements (in the case of concrete, the accuracy of

the elastic modulus was also checked by ultrasonic technique on beams and prisms).
v = Poisson's ratio derived from strain measurements.
f; = cylinder compressive strength at 28 d [the value reported in column 4 is equal to 85% of average value obtained from cubic specimen 150 mm (5.91 in.) in side].
.h = yield strength [obtained from a 5OD-mm-long (19.7in.-long) bar tested in tension].
f, = tensile strength [for concrete, f, was taken as 90% of
the splitting tensile strength according to the CEB-FIP
"Model Code 90" recommendations (1993) for steel, f,
was obtained from a 5OD-mm-long (19.7-in.-long) bar
tested in tension; for the adhesive, f, was based on the
tensile test of a plate 250 X 50 X 5 mm (9.84 X 1.97 X
0.20 in.) after 7 d of curing; and for FRP, it was based
on tensile test of a lamina 250 X 20 X 1.0 mm (9.84 X
1.97 X 0.04 in.).
Eu = tensile strain at failure (for concrete, the value of

(a)

1/2

shear tension failure at sheet end

\

F/2

zs:_"'!L=====c==....__=-

1...

2S

(b)

conctete
j !
:

cut angle
.................................

: :

FRP@Odos.

\..l

....

external shear failure

.
~~~~~y.~

F
Strengthening Schemes and Failure Mechanisms

concrete

a~

~ \

conciete

FIG. 3.

L-_co_n~cllrre_te_....I
F

FIG. 4. lWo Types of Concrete-Adhesive Specimens: Tension

+ Shear Prism; (b) Compression + Shear Cube
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION 1 MAY 1997/65

J. Compos. Constr., 1997, 1(2): 63-70

TABLE 3.

Experimental Interface Characterization for Adhesive Types M and T

Tensile Test

Adhesive
(1 )

Cut angle a
(degrees)

Type M
Type M
Type M
TypeT
Type T
Type T

Compression Test
lJ'

(MPa)
(4)

Failure
mode
(5)

(MPa)
(6)

(MPa)
(7)

Failure
mode
(8)

1.2
2.8
not available
1.5
2.3
not available

concrete
concrete
not available
concrete
concrete
not available

not available
not available
-24.3
not available
not available
-32.9

not available
not available
24.3
not available
not available
32.9

not available
not available
adhesive-concrete interface
not available
not available
adhesive-concrete interface

lJ'

(2)

(MPa)
(3)

30
60
45
30
60
45

2.1
1.6
not available
2.7
1.3
not available

Note: 1.0 ksi = 6.985 MPa, 1.0 Msi = 6.985 GPa.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Griffith University on 07/30/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ShlCIar Stress [r.wa]

Adh. siveT

..

.1I..f

Con retecomp essive_ I an tensile str ngth

..
...........

f""'"'' ....... ...

15

10

-5

r.::iIi::N1-T---I--=:;;~-I---;::;;::::;:::::;;:;::;::;

ISorieaSM I

140 t-----+----~q..---::::::lI"""~~-=====~

Tension

120

+-----F-~.,e__,.,,......::~+----_+----~

100

t---j~~---I--=::::;;,t==::::;;=-t-

80

approxh ation
-20

160

COlI jpression

r----. ~

-25

t--I~~~'""P'~=--t---V-t--r=::::::=:l
-81

6O+---I-'N~~-+-----+----_+----l-SM2

..... 5M3

...

40 f-:,,~r,L----+-----+----_+----l

\~
o

201l':1-

-+-

--SM4
-SMS
+----_+--.J.".--,.;8;;:;M.6io11
lIII deflection

[mm]

5
10

Normal Stress [MPa]

FIG. 5. Mohr-Coulomb Failure Envelope for Concrete-Adhesive Interface

0.0005 was adopted after calibration on the basis of the

flexural behavior of the control beams; for steel, the nominal values of 0.2 was adopted; for adhesive and CFRP,
u was measured with strain gauges during coupon tests).

FIG. 6. Experimental Load versus Midspan Deflection for SerlesSM

120 +-----fg..,..~~--+------+-----_l
100

To calculate the interface characteristics between adhesive

and concrete, two simple tests were carried out in tension +
shear and compression + shear. A sketch of the specimens is
shown in Fig. 4. Prismatic [150 X 100 X 500 mm (5.91 X
3.94 X 19.7 in.)] and cubic [150 mm in side (5.91 in.)] concrete elements were cast together with the beams. After curing,
they were saw-cut (three groups of three specimens each) at
different inclinations (0:) of 45 for compression + shear, and
0: = 30 and 60 for tension + shear tests. The saw-cut pieces
were readied for testing after being rejoined with a layer of
the adhesive used for sheet bonding. Table 3 reports average
tensile (assumed positive) and compressive strengths (<T), defined as <T = F cos a./(b X a) average shear strength (T), defined as T = F sin o:/(b X a), and mode of failure for the two
adhesives tested. The symbols F, a, and b in the preceding
definitions represent the ultimate load, and the length and
width of the adhesive surface, respectively. From these experimental results of concrete-adhesive interface, it was possible to construct the Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope shown
in Fig. 5. From the envelope, it can be deduced that the shear
strength at the concrete-adhesive interface (T u) is about 5 MPa
(0.73 ksi) for both the adhesives used.

20

15

t--7rpr-----r::::::::;::;;~t::::::~-t_

8Ol---~r;-_::::;;;;o

_ _=:-+---_I:.~+----__I

60 +--""7!iF-~:L-_I_----+------+--_r_

40

f-llfI-"F----+-----+-----+----i

20 :u~

+--

-I-

Figs. 6-9 show the experimental load-midspan deflection

curves recorded for all specimens. To facilitate the discussion,
each of the two series (Le., Sand M) is subdivided into two
parts based on the material system (i.e., M and T), resulting
in the following four groups: SM, ST, MM, and MT.
Figs. 10 and 11 show the typical experimental load-strain

=m

-I-_..!=.....
=8T=4:::!...
ddlection [mm]

10

FIG. 7.
rlesST

20

15

Experimental Load versus Midspan Deflection for Se-

2SO
-M1
-MM2
..... MM3
-MM4
-MM5

200

ISO
100
50

25

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

____;;87"1..-1

30

FIG. 8. Experimental Load versus Midspan Deflection for Series MM

curves recorded for groups SM and MM. No strain data were

collected for control specimens. For most specimens, two
strain gauges were applied onto the FRP sheet at the bottom
face: one at midspan (V2) and the other at midlength of the

66/ JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION / MAY 1997

J. Compos. Constr., 1997, 1(2): 63-70

ISeries MT I

Load [kN]

250

-MI
-MT2
-MT3
-MT4
-MTS

200

ISO

~
~

100

~~

-,

y/

~/

'/

VI

50

....
/

Mid-spIDde eclion rmm]

IS

10

20

2S

30

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Griffith University on 07/30/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 9. Experimental Load versus Midspan Deflection for SerlesMT

160

ISeries 8M I

Load [kN]

140

.l jti'

120

./

",f:: -::.~//' ~

100

~.4~"'i
.:~.

80

/11

--SM2alll2
'.D"SM2ala12
....... 8M3 alll2
... SM3 ala12
--SM6aIV2
...8M6ala12
I

vt / / /
.J / I /

60
40

ir/ /
20

FRP strain
0.002

0.000

FIG. 10.
250

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.010

0.012

Experimental Load versus FRPStraln for Series SM

!!!!....1~+---+----t.:=~:J--t----::::~.......,9

200 +---_
_---I---+--;;;Jq---+-----j

-MM2atll2
.. .. MM2ala12
....... MM3 alll2
-MM4atll2
.....
MM4 ata12
5O+---,,~#---+->tC----1~--+----+---1
-MMSatll2

100

+---,.4:..o!t~r--~--+---+--j

O~H--+--+-+_+-+_I_

o
FIG. 11.

0.002

FRP
in
__+_+-I__+-+--+-_I___+__+_+_..j..2~~!!.1

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.010

SM5 showed a debonding failure at the adhesive-concrete interface. In these specimens, the debonding started at one of
the flexural cracks in the constant moment region and propagated towards the sheet end until total delamination occurred.
Specimen SM6 failed by concrete shear at the end of the sheet.
For all strengthened specimens, the maximum strain recorded
in the FRP sheet was at best one third of its ultimate value
(see Fig. 10), indicating an inefficient use of material.
By comparing specimen SM2 with SM4, it can be concluded that sandblasting is a slightly more effective type of
surface preparation by sanding as it produces a higher load
and deflection, even though it does not change the failure
mechanism.
The effect of preloading can be observed by comparing
beam SM2 with SM3. Obviously, SM3 is less rigid in the
initial loading phase, and also its ultimate capacity is lower.
Reducing the area of FRP does not result in a proportional
reduction of strength as observed by comparing specimens
SM4 (bp = 300 mm) and SM5 (bp = 140 mm). This is because
the failure is in both cases is controlled by FRP debonding.
However, it does have an effect on structural stiffness after
yielding of the steel as one would expect.
Specimen SM6, with two FRP plies, showed a considerably
higher stiffness in the cracked region of the load-deflection
curve compared to SM3. It failed at a load higher than that of
SM3 but the mechanism was that of concrete shear failure at
the end of the sheet. In Fig. 10, the load-strain diagrams for
specimens SM3 and SM6, clearly indicate that, at any given
load, the strain in the former sample is considerably higher
than in the latter.

0.012

Experimental Load versus FRP-5train for Series MM

shear span (aI2). The location for each gage is given in the
figure legend.
For ease of interpretation, the unloading-reloading cycles
are not shown in the load-deflection or load-strain curves (with
exception for the control specimens). Fig. 3 reported typical
sketches of crack evolution and failure mechanism obtained in
the experimental program.

GroupSM
Specimens in this group (Figs. 6-10) were strengthened
with prepreg CFRP. All specimens tested as virgin (i.e., SI,
SM2, SM4, SM5) showed at first a linear-elastic behavior followed by a first crack within the constant moment region of
the beam. Thereafter, a large nonlinear phase was recorded
with the development of numerous flexural cracks. In this
phase, the strain in the FRP sheet increased considerably (see
Fig. 10) as well as the beam deflection. Control beam SI
reached failure by crushing of the concrete long after yielding
of the steel reinforcement. Specimens SM2, SM3, SM4, and

Group ST
Specimens of this group (Fig. 7) were strengthened with
dry-fiber CFRP sheets. The relative performance of specimens
ST2 and ST3 is shown in Fig. 7. The former was precracked
and had the surface prepared by sanding, the latter was virgin
and sandblasted. ST2 is less stiff than ST3 in the initial load
range because of the precracking, and fails by FRP debonding
at a lower load because of the surface preparation of lower
effectiveness.
Everything else being the same (i.e., virgin, sandblasted surface), the effect of high modulus fibers is seen in the comparison of ST4 with ST3. The overall stiffness of the former is
obviously higher; however, failure load and mode are the
same.
It is concluded that the difference between the two material
systems M and T is practically insignificant when comparing
the load-deflection curves of specimen pairs SM3 and STI,
and SM4 and ST3 (see Figs. 6 and 7).

Group MM
Specimens in this group (Figs. 8 and II) were strengthened
with prepreg CFRP. Control beam M I reached the failure by
crushing of the concrete long after yielding of the steel. Beams
MM2 and MM3 showed a debonding failure at the adhesiveconcrete interface. In these beams, the debonding started at
one of the flexural cracks in the constant moment region and
propagated towards the sheet end until total delamination occurred. The effect of different surface preparation seems to be
negligible.
Beam MM4, with three plies, showed stiffness in the
cracked region considerably higher than that of the corresponding specimen MM2 strengthened with one FRP ply.
However, it failed at a load only slightly higher due to concrete
shear failure at the end of the sheet.
The brittle failure mechanism due to sheet debonding was
corrected in beam MM5, where a ply of unidirectional fibers
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION / MAY 1997/67

J. Compos. Constr., 1997, 1(2): 63-70

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Griffith University on 07/30/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(b)

at 0 and one ply with the fibers at 90 were applied to the

lateral faces of the beam. The soffit of the beam had a total
of two plies at 0 0 and one at 900 In this case, the load could
increase till the shear strength of the beam was reached right
onto the support and the beam collapsed. By observing Fig.
11, it can be seen that the 00 FRP ply attached to the beam
soffit was close to its ultimate strain value at midspan.
It is possible to compare the effect of strengthening with
respect to the cross section of the RC specimen. Consider
specimen SM3 and MM4. Both specimens were reinforced
with the same material system, over a sanded surface, and in
precracked condition. If one considers the reinforcement ratios
for both tensile steel and FRP in the case of these two specimens, it can be shown that the FRP reinforcement ratio is 52
and 44% that of steel, respectively. The ultimate load ratios
for the two specimens with respect to the control ones are 1.10
and 1.38, respectively. Considering the two geometries tested,
it is therefore concluded that strengthening is more effective
in the case of the deep member where a 44% equivalent reinforcement ratio increase results in 38% ultimate capacity increase.

GroupMT
Specimens of this group (Fig. 9) were strengthened with
dry-fiber CFRP sheets. A comparison of the five load deflection curves shown in Fig. 9 offers interesting observations with
regards to the performance of members strengthened under
different loading conditions. Considering specimens MT3,
MT4, and MT5 (i.e., sandblasting and precracked), one observes that:
Curve MT3 starts from the origin as the specimen is precracked, unloaded, strengthened, and then cyclically
loaded to failure.
Curve MT4 starts at a deflection of nearly 2 mm (0.08
in.). This is the value of the deflection at which the beam
is held under service load (44 kN = 9,879 Ib), strengthened, and then cyclically loaded to failure.
Curve MT5 starts at a deflection of nearly zero under a
service load (44 kN = 9,879 Ib). The deflection is fully
recovered as a result of the external postensioning (i.e.,
340 kN = 76,340 Ib applied at an eccentricity of 80 mm
= 3.1 in.).
Because failure in all cases is controlled by debonding of the
FRP, there is not a substantial difference in ultimate capacity
of the three specimens.
By comparing specimen MT2 with MM2 (Fig. 8), it is
shown that the change in material system is insignificant if the
specimens are strengthened under the same conditions (i.e,
sanding and precracking).

MODELING
The analytical model used to interpret and simulate the experimental data was presented in an earlier publication (Arduini et aI., in press, 1997). The most relevant features of the
model are: nonlinear constitutive relationship for concrete in
compression and tension, confinement effect due to closed stirrups, and concrete-adhesive interface properties. For this paper, the model has been modified to include the effects of
precracking and unloading-reloading.
The constitutive laws for the constituent materials considered by the model are as follows (Arduini et al., in press,
1997).
Concrete in compression is nonlinear according to the
CEB-FIP "Model Code 90" (1993). Fig. 12(a) shows the

8.

............::::....f_........

.-r;

FIG. 12. Virgin and Unloading-Reloading Constitutive Law for

Concrete

constitutive law for the case of confined (thin line) and

unconfined concrete (thick line, symbols with asterisk).
The symbols are: Ec = strain at peak strength; Ec = ultimate strain; E = elastic modulus; t; = peak strength; and
!c. = ultimate strength.
For concrete in tension [see Fig. 12(a), the same nonlinear relationship has been used until the peak strain Ely =
2f,1E followed by a linear descending branch. The symbols are: Ely = strain at peak strength, E,. = ultimate strain,
/, = peak strength.
Steel is bilinear elastohardening.
FRP and adhesive are perfectly linear elastic.
With respect to the unloading-reloading constitutive laws, it
is assumed that FRP and adhesive are perfectly linear-elastic
and no permanent deformation results from cycling. This behavior is also adopted for steel when the cycle peak strain (E.)
is less than the strain at yielding (E). When the peak strain
exceeds that of yielding, the unloading-reloading constitutive
law remains linear elastic with the slope of the initial E, but
with a permanent deformation equal to E. - .OE, where.r. is
the stress level corresponding to E. For concrete in both compression and tension, the unloading-reloading constitutive relationships are summarized in Fig. 12(b). In both regions, two
slopes are possible, depending on whether the cycle peak
strain has or not exceeded Et and Ely. When the strain does
not exceed Et or Ely, the descending branch is linear with slope
equal to E until the zero stress is reached. For the fiber near
the neutral axis, where an inversion of stress could happen,
the original stress-strain constitutive law is adopted preceded
by its horizontal translation.
An example of loading, unloading, and reloading cycles,
when the peak strain goes from compression to tension and
from tension to compression, is shown in Fig. 12(b). This figure is intended to clarify the assumption of permanent deformation. The model has been used only for loading-unloading
and reloading until failure. Moreover, the preloading condition
considered would only generate a stress level equal to 1/3 of
the concrete strength. This means that only two or three of the
n segments in which the beam was subdivided (n = 20 and 30
for series Sand M, respectively), presented crack evolution
with permanent (tensile) deformations. Also, during unloading,
the inversion in the stress state existed only in the zone in a
direct vicinity of the neutral axis.
Fig. 13 compares the analytical and experimental curves for
the cases of specimens S1 (control), SM4, and SM6. Similarly,
Fig. 14 compares the analytical and experimental curves for
the case of specimens Ml (control), MM2, and MM5. In all
cases of strengthened beams, the failure mechanism experienced during the test is reproduced and confirmed analytically.
The analytical prediction curves appear to be more rigid than
the experimental ones in the vicinity of the ultimate load capacity and have the tendency to overestimate it. This may be
due to the fact that the model assumes that plane sections
remain plane and does not include the effects of local de-

68/ JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION / MAY 1997

J. Compos. Constr., 1997, 1(2): 63-70

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Griffith University on 07/30/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

bonding (as it was experienced during testing). In fact, the

mechanism of sheet debonding observed experimentally is the
result of the progressive delamination of the FRP sheet from
a crack in the constant moment region. The unloading-reloading constitutive laws adopted for the four materials (loading
cycles are not indicated in the diagrams) seem to work properly. The only significant difference between model and experiment is in the fact that the analytical unloading segment
of a cycle is more rigid than that of the experiment.
Table 4 summarizes the findings of some comparisons between analytical and experimental results. Only a selected
number of cases is reported. The ratio analytical-to-experimental ultimate load (Fu.a/Fmax ) is given in column 2; the ultimate deflection ratio (8u a /8max ) is given in column 3; and the
type of failure (which is the same for both model and test) is
given in column 4. With the exception of specimen MM5,
where the failure was due to vertical concrete shear at the
180

..

Load [leN]

.)' ~

/:i>

100

60

20

ISeriesSM I

::,~

~.,.

1///
---:-: ~/
1/
~
I/"'.

80

40

.....

140

120

.........

160

-Sl
--SM4
-+-SM6
...... SIA
..SM4A
"+"SM6-A
Mid-, an deflection [mm)

1(...7

,~r

10

FIG. 13. Analytical to Experimental Load-Deflection Comparison for Series SM

2SO Load

[kN]

-1----+----+=-""--__"""'1-----+------1

-MI
-MM2

-~

...MIA

" oMM2A
ISO +----+~,,-.~_:b_O;:';':'-"'!='L---+_--_l
.....MMS-A

loo-!--SO-!--AtI"#~-"L--_1_---'~+----I___--_+-----l

Mid,pan d flection [nun)

o~>-+_+_~'_+_+__+_i_l_-+--_+_i-+-+-+_+_+_-+-l___+_+_.........,>__+_+__+_i--+-l

10

IS

20

25

30

FIG. 14. Analytical to Experimental Load-Deflection Comparison for Series MM

TABLE 4.
Results

Comparison between Analytical and Experimental

Beam
code Fu./Fm.x
(1 )
(2)

Sl
SM3
SM4
SM6
ST2
ST4
Ml
MM3
MM5

0.90
1.03
1.12
1.13
1.16
1.16
0.93
1.14
0.97

8u. /8m.x
(3)

N/A
0.86
0.99
1.21
0.96
1.12
N/A
0.90
0.71

Type of failure
(4)

concrete crushing
debonding adhesive-concrete interface
debonding adhesive-concrete interface
shear concrete at the end of the sheets
debonding adhesive-concrete interface
debonding adhesive-concrete interface
concrete crushing
debonding adhesive-concrete interface
shear failure at the support of the con
crete beams

Note: N/A = not applicable as program was interrupted.

.............

ISO

-MM211112
-MM2lte12
100 -I---H""".......I'"--+----+----H --MMSII1I2
" 0 " MM2-A 11112
..... MM2-A II eI2
so.J.l..&.:jl!.-+----1---+-----+-1 ..... MMSA 11112
FRP strsin

ol--I--l-+-+-+---+-+-I-+_+_-+--+--I--l-+-+_+_-+-+-II---+-+--+-I

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

om

0.012

FIG. 15. Analytical to Experimental Load-8traln Comparison

for Series MM

support, the adequacy of the analytical prediction is proven.

In terms of prediction, the model flagged the occurrence of
failure when the preimposed ultimate strain levels were
reached.
The comparison between analytical and experimental strain
curves is shown in Fig. 15 for the case of beams MM2 and
MM5. Six curves are shown in this figure. The ones plotted
with a dotted line refer to the analytical prediction. The match
is very satisfactory in the case of these two beams. For others,
some discrepancies may occur as the presence of a crack affects the strain readings during the experiment, whereas the
model works for discrete segments of beam and the cracks are
considered as uniformly distributed along each segment.

Based on the analytical and experimental results obtained

in this study some general and specific conclusions can be
drawn. General considerations are:

20

IS

200 -!----+----1---+-...,,:J#=+----1~-__I

CONCLUSIONS

o
o

2SO f!<!!!!!~!lf---+--{.:Seri~e~I~MM~I_-+--__::k~~~-

The strengthening technology consisting of externally

bonded CFRP sheets is easy to perform and results in
significant improvements in ultimate load capacity and, to
a lesser extent, in flexural stiffness.
The area in need of major attention and, possibly, improvement is that of concrete-FRP adhesion. It is necessary to avoid or at least limit the extent of FRP peeling
in order to improve the effectiveness of the strengthening
method and the ductility of the load-deflection response.
It is possible to simulate and predict experimental loaddeflection behavior, strain distribution, and the failure
mode of FRP strengthened beams, including the effects
of precracking and unloading-reloading cycles.
Specific considerations are as follows:
The performance of a strengthened precracked specimen
(without sealing the cracks) is not significantly different
from that of a strengthened virgin specimen (i.e, lower
initial stiffness and ultimate capacity).
The effectiveness of FRP strengthening is function of the
RC cross section shape and the amount of steel reinforcement present.
Considering a concrete surface in good conditions, the
effectiveness of surface preparation using sanding or
sandblasting appears to be slightly in favor of the latter.
The installation and response of two material systems that
make use of prepreg and dry carbon fibers and proprietary
epoxy resin/primer are not significantly different.
Carbon fiber stiffness, fiber direction, and number of plies
have important consequences on performance of strengthened beams. Wrapping a sheet at 900 (in this project it
was done over the entire length of the beam) is an effective way for anchoring the 00 plies.
Because failure was controlled by FRP debonding, beam
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION / MAY 1997/69

J. Compos. Constr., 1997, 1(2): 63-70

strengthening under load with or without posttensioning

was not significantly different from strengthening in absence of applied vertical load. The positive consequences
of compensating for existing deflection are obvious.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The contribution of materials and technical data from Mitsubishi
Chemical, Japan, and Tonen, Japan, is gratefully acknowledged. Financial
support was partially provided by the Italian Research Council (special
project number 95.00206.CT07). The second writer thanks DISTART at
the University of Bologna for hosting him during his sabbatical.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Griffith University on 07/30/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

APPEND~.

REFERENCES

Baaza, I. M., Missihoun, M., and Labossiere, P. (1996). "Strengthening

of reinforced concrete beams with CFRP sheets." Proc., 1st 1nt. Con!
on Compos. in 1nfrastruct. 1CCI 96, Dept. of Civ. Engrg. and Engrs.
Mech., Univ. of Arizona, Tucson, Ariz., 746-759.
CEB-FIP Committee. (1993). "Model code 90." Lausanne, Switzerland.
Chajes M. J., Thomson, T. A., Januszka, T. F., and Fin, W. (1994). "Flexural strengthening of concrete beams using externally bonded composite materials." Constr. and Build. Mat., 8(3), 191-201.

Crasto, A. S., Kim, R. Y., Fowler, C., and Mistretta, J. P. (1996). "Rehabilitation of concrete bridge beams with externally-bonded composite
plates. Part I." Proc., 1st Int. Con! on Compos. in Infrastruet. ICCI
96. 857-869.
Meier, U., and Winistorfer, A. (1995). "Retrofitting of structures through
external bonding of CFRP sheets." Proc., 2nd Int. RILEM Symp.
FRPRCS-2, Reunion Internationale des Laboratoires d'Essais et de Recherches sur les Materiaux et les Constructions, E & FN Spon, London,
England.
Nakamura, M., Sakai, H., Yagi, K., and Tanaka, T. (1996). "Experimental
studies on the flexural reinforcing effect of carbon fiber sheet bonded
to reinforced concrete beam," Proc., 1st Int. Con! on Compos. in 1nfrastruet. ICCI 96, 760-773.
Saadatmanesh, H., and Ehsani, M. (1991a). "RC beams strengthening
with GFRP plates: experimental study." J. Struet. Engrg., ASCE,
117(11), 3417 -3433.
Saadatmanesh, H., and Ehsani, M. (l991b). "RC beams strengthened
with GFRP plates: analytical and parametric studies." J. Struet. Engrg.,
ASCE, 117(11), 3432-3455.
Varastehpour, H., and Hamelin, P. (1995). "Structural behavior of reinforced concrete beams strengthened by epoxy bonded FRP plates."
Proe., 2nd Int. RILEM Symp. FRPRCS-2, Reunion Internationale des
Laboratoires d'Essais et de Recherches sur les Materiaux et les Constructions.

70 I JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION I MAY 1997

J. Compos. Constr., 1997, 1(2): 63-70