Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 8

Concrete Repair, Rehabilitation and Retrofitting II Alexander et al (eds)

2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-46850-3

Anchorage failure of RC beams strengthened with FRP


at the bottom face
Fedja Arifovic & Bjrn Tljsten
Department of Civil Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Denmark

ABSTRACT: When RC beams are strengthened by FRP plates bonded to the bottom face of the beam they
fail due to the lack of the mechanical anchorage of the plate. This paper shows that it is possible to relate the
anchorage failure of tension face FRP-plated beams to the crack sliding capacity of the beams.
The method suggested gives the highly desirable occurrence of the critical diagonal shear crack. The occurrence of this crack is suggested as the anchorage failure mechanism of the plate. The failure load that produces
the sliding in such crack is shown to be a lower bound to the anchorage failure load of tension face plated
beams. The assumption is that the FRP-plate must be extended at least one critical anchorage length beyond the
theoretical occurrence of the critical diagonal crack.

INTRODUCTION

When an RC beam is strengthened by FRP plates


bonded to the bottom face of the beam and subjected
to bending it fails due to the anchorage failure of the
plate. This means that the full composite action of the
plate can not be expected.
This paper suggests the occurrence of the critical
diagonal shear crack as the governing failure mechanism of the anchorage failure. The occurrence of
this crack is found by the means of the crack sliding
theory. Thus, this solution suggests the shear resistance of an unplated RC beam without internal shear
reinforcement as the lower bound to the load that
produces the anchorage failure of tension plated RC
beams. This requires a simplification of the dominant
failure modes of tension face plated RC beams to the
diagonal cracking failure (the diagonal cracking is
shown in Figure 1).
Zhang (1997) develops the crack sliding theory
for the beams without shear reinforcement by defining the load that produces diagonal cracking in such
beams. These beams fail in shear by a major diagonal crack, and by demanding the sliding in such a
crack the shear carrying capacity of the beam may
be found.
The reason for using the crack sliding theory is
that it is based on the upper bound solutions of the
theory of plasticity. The upper bound solutions are
based on the geometrically possible strain fields.
Thus, on the basis of a predicted failure mechanism

Figure 1.
beam.

Debonding failures of a tension plated RC

the maximum energy dissipation in the structure


may be found. By means of the work equation this
leads to the carrying capacity of the structure. Since
the upper bound solutions do not require any knowledge on the difficult stress state in the structure, they
seem obvious for producing the simple design equations at the limit state for RC beams strengthened by
bonded FRP.
In the FRP tension face plated beams the stress state
is difficult to determine because of the vertical cracking between the FRP and concrete at the limit state.

1069

Therefore the usual approach used when calculating


the anchorage of the internal tensile reinforcement is
not applicable since the cracking does not allow for the
usual tensile force distribution. Normally, the internal tensile reinforcement must sustain certain tensile
force T at certain anchorage length. For instance, the
distribution of this force along the beam length x for
shear reinforced beams may be written as
T ( x) =

M ( x) 1
+ V ( x)cot
h
2

(1)

Here is the inclination of the diagonal compression field and M and V are the moment and shear section forces, respectively. h is the beam height.
It is seen that the tensile force T is thus not only
equal to the value M/ h from the section with bending moment only but due to the presence of the compressive stresses in normal sections of the web it
increases, Nielsen (1998). Not being able to establish
the same tensile force distribution in an FRP plate as
given in eq. (1), at the limit state, must mean that in
general the elastic solutions (normally based on an
elastic stress state at the plate end) fail to give rational
solutions of the anchorage failure.
The literature describes the anchorage failure of
FRP tension face plated beams very well and there
is a general agreement in the description. Quantrill
et al. (1996) describe the dominant failure in the
tests they conducted as the plate separation failure.
This plate separation occurs at the plate end near
the support with the concrete cover still attached
to the plate. Garden and Hollaway (1998) investigate the influence of the plate end anchorage. They
find the plate separation failure as the most common
failure due to the peeling action at the end of the
plate. They write that this failure is influenced by
the shear span to depth ratio of the beam: increasing ratio leads to the plate separation being initiated away from the plate end towards the constant
moment region. Oh et al. (2003) recognize the plate
separation failure as the rip-off failure that occurs
at the cover to internal reinforcement ratio but they
also describe the same type of failure occurring in
the interface between the adhesive and the concrete.
One more extensive description of the anchorage
failure mechanisms is due to Teng and Yao (2007).
They describe major failure modes as the critical
diagonal cracking (CDC) debonding of the plate
and the cover separation failure. Their description
is somewhat comprehensive and it even contains the
combinations of these failures.
Ali et al. (2001) and Oehlers et al. (2004) use
the crack sliding theory for FRP tension face plated
beams. This paper gives a brief discussion of their
solutions.

METHODS

This section describes the methods for finding the


carrying capacity of the tension face plated beams
that undergo the anchorage failure. Firstly, the section describes the classical plastic solution for calculating shear capacity of non-shear reinforced
beams followed by the description of the crack sliding theory. The classical approach describes the use
of the upper bound theory and the need for a better physical explanation of the shear failure of nonshear reinforced beams. The crack sliding theory
provides this. The crack sliding theory for tension
face plated beams is subsequently discussed. Finally,
the approaches by Ali et al. (2001) and Oehlers et al.
(2004) are described.
2.1

Shear capacity of RC beamsupper bound


approach

In Figure 2 shear failure of beams without shear reinf


is shown. Utilizing the expression for the dissipation
in concrete per unit length D = 12 fc ub(1 sin ) for shear
failure given by Nielsen (1998) the work equation
becomes
Pu =

1
h
f c ub(1 cos )
u
2
sin

(2)

where fc is the concrete compressive strength and the


geometrical quantities are given in Figure 2.
Inserting tan = h/a and introducing = P/bh the
solution becomes
2
a
1
a
= 1+
h
fc 2
h

(3)

Figure 2. Shear failure mechanism for a beam loaded by


concentrated forces, Nielsen (1998).

1070

Due to the lack of perfect plasticity of the concrete compressive strength a so-called effectiveness
factor must be introduced. The effectiveness factor
also covers the strength reductio due to the cracking.
In the beam shear problem the effectiveness factor
is a product of functions f depending on concrete
strength, the beam height (size effect), the reinforcement ratio = As/bh and the relative shear span a/ h.
he f-functions are written as
f1 ( f c ) =

3.5
[MPa ]
fc

(4a)

f 2 ( h) = 0.27 1 +
[m]

(4b)

f 3 ( ) = 15 + 0.58 [%]

(4c)

a
a

f 4 = 1.0 + 0.17 2.6


h
h

(4d)

Since the cracking is explained only through the


effectiveness factor the model is not able to quantify
for the influence of cracking on the failure mechanism. Furthermore, here is no physical explanation
for the function f4 that describes the relative shear
span dependency. This indicates that the classical
plasticity approach does not explain the beam shear
problem fully. Therefore, the crack sliding theory
must be induced.

2.2

Crack sliding theory

The crack sliding theory takes into account the


cracking that influences the failure. It is the last
formed diagonal crack that initiates at the bottom face
and propagates to the load point that is of the interest. The theory is for beams without shear reinforcement and may furthermore be extended to beams with
light shear reinforcement. The theory is developed by
Zhang (1997).
By the means of the crack sliding theory it is possible to predict a theoretical occurrence of the critical diagonal shear crack. It is well known that this
crack is the failure mechanism that governs the failure of beams without shear reinforcement. The failure
occurs by sliding in this critical crack. Figure 3 illustrates this. The figure shows that the cracks that occur
close to the loading point occur for low levels of
the cracking load. However, the sliding failure in those
cracks demands higher dissipation in concrete than in
those cracks that start closer to the support.
Finally, the sliding in a crack can thus only occur
for the load defined by the intersection of the cracking load curve and the shear load curve. This defines
the position of the critical diagonal crack.
The cracking load may be found by inducing a
simple solution to a problem that in reality belongs
to the field of the fracture mechanics. The solution
is based on the assumption that the diagonal cracking appears when the effective tensile strength in the
crack is exceeded. The load that induces this failure is
found by the moment equilibrium (see Figure 4) and
by approximating the crack to a linear crack, thus
1
1
Pcr c + a = bf t .ef (h 2 + (a x) 2 )
2
2

(5)

The dissipation formula from the upper bound


solutions from the above defines the sliding in the

Figure 3.

Crack sliding theory, Nielsen (1998).

Figure 4. Cracking load, Nielsen (2005).

1071

diagonal crack. The shear sliding load may be written


using the analogy of eq. (3). The sliding load becomes
Pu =

1
bf c ( h2 + ( a x )2 ( a x ))
2

(6)

As in the upper bound solution for shear reinforced


beams (eq. (3)) the reinforcement is strong, i.e. the
beam is overreinforced.
The sliding in the crack demands now (5) equal to
(6). Thus the crack sliding criterion becomes

a x
fc 1 +
h

( )

a x
1+ h
a x
= f t .ef a 1 c

h
h + 2 h

Figure 5. Anchorage failure mechanism.


2

(7)

here x is the distance from the face of the support


plate to the intersection of the critical diagonal crack
with the bottom face.
Sliding failure in such a crack involves the use
of the effectiveness factor v for the compressive
strength of cracked concrete. v is a product of v0 and
vs vs is the crack sliding factor and is set to 0.5 and
v0 is a function of the concrete compressive strength
fc, beam height h and the reinforcement ratio (see
eq. (4)). The relative shear span dependency can now
be avoided. The effectiveness factor v is written as

by simple anchorage strength modelsfor instance


such as one proposed by Chen and Teng (2001).
Thus, when calculating the anchorage failure load
the approach is to define the theoretical occurrence of
the critical diagonal crack by satisfying the crack sliding criterion. If the FRP-plate is extended at least one
anchorage length beyond the intersection between the
crack and the bottom face (i.e. if positions 3 or 4 from
Figure 5 are achieved) the crack sliding solution is on
the safe side. It is thus assumed that the load carrying capacity is increased by increasing the anchorage
length beyond the theoretical occurrence of the critical diagonal crack. If there is no sufficient anchorage
length a mechanical anchorage must be provided.

v0 = f1 ( f c ) f 2 (h) f 3 ( )

2.4

(8)

is the load factor: 1.6 for point load. The effective tensile strength of concrete is given by Zhang (1997) to
f t .ef = 0.6 f t s( h),

f t = 0.26 f c 2 / 3 ,

0.3

h
s( h) =
0.1

(9)

2.3

Theory for anchorage failure of tension face


plated RC beams

Ali et al. (2001) approach

Oehlers (1992) suggests that a lower bound to cause


the peeling in a tension face plated beam may be taken
as the shear strength of the beam without stirrups. Ali
et al. (2001) use this approach by applying the crack
sliding theory developed by Zhang (1997). Thus, they
modified the theory presented in this paper. They
modify the crack sliding model to account for the
contribution of the tension face plating.
Ali et al. (2001) suggest the component Pcr the
plate must resist to
Pcr = m

The anchorage failure of tension face plated beams


is assumed governed by the critical diagonal shear
crack. In Figure 5 it is illustrated that the crack may
intersect the bottom face outside the range of the FRP
(case 1), inside the critical anchorage length (case 2),
at the critical anchorage length (case 3) and outside
the critical anchorage length (case 4). The occurrence
of the crack is approximately found by the crack sliding criterion (eq. (7)), in which the beams are assumed
overreinforced (tensile reinforcement does not yield at
the failure). It is suggested to approximate the critical
anchorage length of the FRP-plate to the ones found

(a x) 2 + h 2
b f t f f tf
h

(10)

where m = Ef /Ec is the steel plate to concrete stiffness


ratio and ft is the concrete tensile strength. Using the contribution (10) the cracking load from (5) becomes then
( a x )2 + h2 f t .ef mf t b f t f ( h + 0.5t f )
Pcr =

2 +
a
h2

(11)
ftef is given in eq. (9).

1072

Furthermore, Ali et al. (2001) suggest the crack


sliding load given by modified eq. (6). The modification consists of changing the influence of the reinforcement ratio on to the effectiveness factor for
compressive strength of the concrete. This may be
done through the function f3 from eq. (8). They propose the effectiveness factor to be
v0 vs = 0.25

3.5
fc

8.54

0.27 +
f 3 ( f )
h

f1 ( f c ) f 2 ( h) f 3 ( ) / 1 KW

(12)

where f = (As + Pf /fyf )/bh. Pf is the axial force to


cause the debonding and fyf is the yield strength of the
plate. They transform function f2 to h being inserted
in mm. -factor describes the load type: 1.6 for point
load.
2.5

Fps + Paxial

Pu = 0.4 f c bh 1 + 2

f c bh

a x
a x
1+

Passive prestress approach


by Oehlers et al. (2004)

Oehlers et al. (2004) follow the same approach of


the crack sliding theory and they develop passive
prestress approach. In this model the tension face
plates act as additional longitudinal reinforcing
bars. They assume that the resistance to the shear
across the diagonal crack is controlled by the crosssection of all longitudinal reinforcing bars crossing
the crack. This is also valid for the maximum axial
force in the plate but they assume those to act as
passive prestressing forces, i.e. not before the diagonal crack forms. The equations from Oehlers et al.
(2004) are of the same form as eq. (10), (11) and
(12) that Ali et al. (2001) propose. In addition Oehlers et al. (2004)s equations account for the force
from the prestressing tendons and the equations
include factors KM and KW that are the factors that
relate moment section force to the shear section
force and the shear section force to the load, respectively. Thus, Oehlers et al. (2004) suggest the cracking load to

(14)

where Paxial is the axial force in the plate. The f -functions


are given in (8). As in the original crack sliding theory
equalizing (13) to (14) gives the position of the critical diagonal shear crack.

RESULTS

In this section the failure loads predicted by the crack


sliding theory are compared to experimental failure
loads. The experimental failure loads are due to a test
database collected by Teng and Yao (2007). The tests
in this database all exhibited concrete cover separation failure. The comparison is shown in Figure 6 and
the test database is reproduced in Table 1. In the calculation it is assumed that all beams were provided
with FRP-plates with sufficient anchorage length (i.e.
at least one anchorage length beyond the theoretical
occurrence of the critical crack). The comparison
showed that the crack sliding solution renders safe
failure loads with a mean value of 0.8. The coefficient
of variation is 20% and the correlation is 0.94.

f t ( m p Af L f )
bf t .ef

+
Pcr = ( x 2 + h2 )

h2

+ Fps d ps /( L0 + K M + KW e)

(13)

where Af and Lf are the cross-sectional area of a rectangular section of the plate and the lever arm from
the centroid of the rectangular section to the focal
point O, respectively. Fps is the prestressing force
and dps is the lever arm of the prestressing force
from the focal point. They define the crack sliding
load as

Figure 6. Crack sliding results comparing to the test results


from the cover separation data base of Teng and Yao (2007).

1073

1074

1T6LN
2T6LN
274LN
A-S1
A-S2
B-S1
B-S2
1B
3B
AF4
AF10
AF11
DF2
DF3
DF4
5
B1u1.0
B2u.10
B1u2.3

1Au
1Bu
1B2u
2Bu
1Cu
2Cu
2Au
3Au
3Bu
3Cu

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

150
150
150
100
100
100
100
154
151
125
200
200
125
125
125
150
100
100
130

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

200
200
200
150
150
150
150
250
250
225
150
150
225
225
225
250
100
100
230

87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87

167
167
167
133
133
133
133
220
220
197
125
125
197
197
197
210
87
87
211

150
150
150
110
150
110
110
50
50
50

250
250
250
100
100
100
100
250
250
250
300
300
250
250
250
250
150
150
256

L1

280
280
280
320
280
320
320
380
380
380

480
480
480
350
350
350
350
475
450
450
750
750
450
450
450
450
280
280
804

L2

20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20

20
20
20
50
50
50
50
25
50
50
0
0
50
50
50
50
20
20
40

L3

46.70
46.70
46.70
46.70
46.70
46.70
46.70
46.70
46.70
46.70

47.80
62.10
62.10
39.50
39.50
41.60
41.60
31.10
44.70
41.00
48.60
48.60
46.00
46.00
46.00
40.10
42.70
42.70
37.10

fc

350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350

460
460
460
500
500
500
500
506
506
568
575
575
568
568
568
537
350
350
556
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3

fy

Tensile reinf.

Beam details

6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00

10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
8.00
10.00
10.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
10.00
6.00
6.00
10.00

dt

Internal reinforcement

2.99
2.99
2.99
2.99
2.99
2.99
2.99
2.99
2.99
2.99

8
8
8
6
6
6
6
10
10
6
6
6
6
6
6
10
2.99
2.99
6

dw

51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51

75
75
75
100
100
100
100
100
100
71
150
150
100
100
100
100
51
51
150

fyw

Shear reinf.

Table 1. Test database of four-point bending tests exhibiting the cover separation failure, Teng and Yao (2007).

350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350

250
250
250
500
500
500
500
506
506
553
250
250
553
553
553
537
350
350
350

sw

0.500
0.700
0.700
0.700
1.000
1.000
0.500
0.500
0.700
1.000

0.660
0.660
0.440
1.200
1.200
1.200
1.200
0.330
0.330
0.334
0.800
0.800
0.334
0.501
0.668
2.640
0.820
0.820
1.280

tf

90
65
65
65
45
45
90
90
65
45

150
150
150
50
50
50
50
150
147
75
150
150
75
75
75
150
67
67
90

bf

FRP details

111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111

235
235
235
165
165
165
165
271
257
240
127
127
240
240
240
20
111
111
115

Ef

1273
1273
1273
1273
1273
1273
1273
1273
1273
1273

4200
4200
4200
2600
2600
2600
2600
3720
4519
3500
1532
1532
3500
3500
3500
259
1414
1414
1284

ftf

5.94
5.49
5.46
5.78
4.80
6.05
6.56
7.80
6.92
6.16

29.05
34.00
33.35
15.72
16.84
14.04
15.12
33.40
32.65
27.75
25.35
26.03
30.15
30.00
31.40
39.70
5.49
4.80
42.37

Mu

5.26
5.26
5.26
5.70
5.26
5.70
5.70
6.34
6.34
6.34

21.49
24.89
24.89
8.93
8.93
9.19
9.19
21.51
25.88
18.12
27.97
27.97
19.84
19.84
19.84
24.19
5.01
5.01
27.12

Mtheory

Comparison

Note: For the origin of the data see Teng and Yao (2007). The units are mm, kN, MPa and GPa for Ef . L1, L2 and L3 are the horizontal distance from the middle of the beam to
the first loading point, from the loading point to the plate end and from the plate end to the support point, respectively. For other quantities see List of symbols. The predicted
moment values are found by satisfying (7) and inserting the corresponding x into (5) or (6). The achieved force P is multiplied with a = L2 + L3 in order to get Mtheory. Mu is
maximum moment by applying the test failure loads from the database.

30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37

B2
B4
B6
A1c
A2b
A2c
G
M

100
100
100
100
100
100
152
152

100
100
100
100
100
100
305
305

87
87
87
87
87
87
257
257

150
150
150
150
150
150
305
305

280
280
280
280
280
280
914
914

20
20
20
20
20
20
0
0

41.90
41.90
41.90
55.30
33.20
33.20
43.00
43.00

350
350
350
350
350
350
414
414

3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2

6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
12.70
12.70

2.99
2.99
2.99
3
3
3
7.94
7.94

50
50
50
100
100
100
102
102

350
350
350
350
350
350
414
414

1.200
1.600
1.200
1.200
1.200
1.200
4.190
1.270

80
60
80
80
80
80
152
152

49
49
119
49
49
49
10
118

1078
1078
987
1078
1078
1078
184
1489

5.10
5.25
6.12
6.60
5.52
5.61
57.49
65.90

4.95
4.95
4.95
5.78
4.35
4.35
46.95
46.95

DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

It is shown the crack sliding failure predicts a load


carrying capacity that is a lower bound to the load that
produces the anchorage failure of a tension face FRPplated beam. The demand is that the FRP-plate extends
at least one critical anchorage length beyond the theoretical occurrence of the critical diagonal crack.
In this paper the solutions given by Ali et al. (2001)
and Oehlers et al. (2004) are described. They observed
that the shear capacity of a beam without shear reinforcement may be a lower bound to the beam capacity
of tension plated beam that undergoes the anchorage
failure. They modified the crack sliding theory for
beams plated in longitudinal direction in order to define
the carrying capacity of the strengthened beams.
In the crack sliding theory only external loading
may influence cracking load (right hand side of eq. (7))
and this load may be, beside the beam loading, the
prestressing force in the case of prestress beams. This
means that the longitudinal plating may only affect
the capacity of the through the crack sliding load (left
hand side of eq. (7)and only if the beam is normally
reinforced). Oehlers et al. (2004)s principle of passive approach stated that FRP becomes active only
when the diagonal shear has formed. This must also
mean that it can not affect the cracking load. However, Oehlers et al. (2004) included plating contribution in the cracking load.
Furthermore, it is important to emphasize that the
sliding load was defined through an upper bound
solution. This solution assumed strong stringers, i.e.
longitudinal reinforcement and tension face plating
do not contribute to the upper bound equations. In
plastic solutions the longitudinal reinforcement only
contributes if it yields. Ali et al. (2001) and Oehlers et
al. (2004) included the longitudinal plating contribution to the crack sliding load disregarding the upper
bound nature of the solution.
Furthermore, the solution given by Ali et al. (2001)
is derived using the effectiveness factor from (8).
They modified f2() inserting f = (As + Pf /fyf)/bh. The
function f2() is entirely due to the dowel action of
the longitudinal reinforcing bars, Nielsen (1998). The
effect of the longitudinal plating on the dowel action
is not clear and it is therefore doubtful whether the
longitudinal plating affects the effectiveness factor in
this way.
5

LIST OF SYMBOLS

Angle between the diagonal crack and the longitudinal axis of the beam
Load type factor
Mean shear stress distribution along the beam
height

1075

Shear reinforcement ratio


Tensile reinforcement degree
Shear reinforcement degree
a Shear span of the beam
Asw Stirrup area
b Beam width
bf FRP plate/sheet width
c Width of the support plate
d Beam effective height
dt Tensile reinforcement diameter
dw Shear reinforcement diameter
Ef FRP stiffness
Ec Concrete stiffness
fc Concrete compressive strength
fy Tensile reinf. yields strength
fyw Stirrups yield strength
ft Tensile concrete strength
ftf FRP tensile strength
ftef Effective tensile concrete strength
h Beam height
M Moment section force
n Number of tensile bars
P Point loading
sw Center to center distance between the shear
reinforcement
tf FRP plate/sheet thickness
V Shear section force

Chen, J.F. and Teng, J. (2001). Anchorage Strength Models


for FRP and Steel Plats Bonded To Concrete. Journal of
structural engineering, 127(7):784791.
Garden, H.N. and Hollaway, L.C. (1998). An experimental
study of the influence of plate end anchorage of carbon
fibre composite plates used to strengthen reinforced concrete beams. Composite Structures, 42(2):175188.
Nielsen, M.P. (1998). Limit Analysis and Concrete Plasticity. CRC Press, 2nd edition.
Nielsen, M.P. (2005). Beton 2 Del 7. MP Nielsen, 1st
edition.
Oehlers, D.J. (1992). Reinforced concrete beams with plates
glued to their soffits. Journal of Structural Engineering,
118(8):20232038.
Oehlers, D.J., Liu, I.S.T., Seracino, R., and Ali, M.S.M.
(2004). Prestress model for shear deformation debonding
of FRP- and steel-plated RC beams. Magazine of Concrete Research, 56(8):475486.
Oh, B.H., Cho, J.Y., and Park, D.G. (2003). Failure behavior
and separation criterion for strengthened concrete members with steel plates. Journal of Structural EngineeringAsce, 129(9):11911198.
Quantrill, R.J., Hollaway, L.C., and Thorne, A.M. (1996).
Experimental and analytical of FRP strenghtened beam
response: Part I. Magazine of Concrete Research,
48(177):33142.
Teng, J.G. and Yao, J. (2007). Plate end debonding in FRPplated RC beamsII: Strength model. Engineering
Structures, 29:24722486.
Zhang, J. (1997). Diagonal cracking and shear strength
of reinforced concrete beams. Magazine of Concrete
Research, 49(178):5565.

REFERENCES
Ali, M.S.M., Oehlers, J.D., and Bradford, M.A. (2001).
Shear peeling of steel plates bonded to tension faces
of RC beams. Journal of structural engineering,
127(12):14531459.

1076