Construction and Building Materials 59 (2014) 169179

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Finite element modeling of the shear capacity of RC beams strengthened

with FRP sheets by considering different failure modes
Ahmed M. Sayed, Xin Wang, Zhishen Wu
International Institute for Urban Systems Engineering, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, Jiangsu, China

h i g h l i g h t s

 A new model is proposed to account for all parameters that may affect shear capacity.
 The model can predict the modes of failure (debonding or tensile rupture).
 The proposed model is more accurate than other available models in predicting the failure mode and the effective strain at failure.
 The proposed model can be used to increase the potential capacity of the FRP composites for strengthening structures.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this study, three-dimensional (3D) nite element (FE) analyses were carried out to study the effects of
Received 1 November 2013 several variables on the failure modes and ultimate shear capacity of reinforced concrete (RC) beams
Received in revised form 17 February 2014 strengthened with ber-reinforced polymer (FRP) sheets. Fifty-eight cases were analyzed by FE modeling.
Accepted 21 February 2014
The parameters considered to affect the failure modes and the shear capacity included the beam width,
Available online 15 March 2014
the concrete strength, the height and thickness of the FRP sheet, the elastic modulus of the FRP and the
strengthening conguration (complete wrapping, U-jacketing, and side bonding). A model for predicting
Keywords:
the failure mode and the shear capacity were proposed on the basis of the results of the parametric anal-
Finite element
Shear capacity
ysis. Experimental results for 307 beams collected from previously published work were analyzed to ver-
FRP sheets ify the accuracy of the proposed model. The results show that the failure modes of RC beams are affected
Shear model by the parameters considered and can be predicted by the proposed model. The results also indicate that
Shear failure mode the proposed model can be used to calculate the shear capacity of RC beams strengthened with FRP
sheets and to predict the failure mode with greater accuracy than existing models.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction sheets because of the inuence of various failure modes induced

The use of ber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composites as exter-
nally bonded reinforcement is widely recognized as an efcient
method of strengthening and upgrading reinforced concrete (RC)
structures, owing to their superior mechanical and chemical prop-
erties compared to conventional steel. However, inaccurate model-
ing and prediction of the structural behavior of FRP-strengthened
structures greatly affects the efcient use of FRP, which reduces
the structural safety and performance-to-cost ratio of FRP.
It is well known that it is difcult to predict the shear behavior
of a conventional RC beam accurately because of its brittle and
complex mechanisms. It is even more difcult to predict the shear
capacity of an RC structure externally strengthened with FRP
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: emc_elngaoy@yahoo.com (A.M. Sayed), xinwang@seu.edu.cn
(X. Wang), zswu@seu.edu.cn (Z. Wu).
by bonded FRP, including debonding failure and tensile rupture
failure. Thus, the shear capacity calculation methods recom-
mended in design codes and the methods for identifying the failure
mode are based on empirical or semi-empirical equations derived
from design equations for conventional RC structures. Some typical
methods and recommendations adopted in various countries for
the design of RC structures with FRP sheets are as follows: ACI-
440 [1], Triantallou and Antonopoulos [2], Matthys and Triantal-
lou [3], Carolin and Tljsten [4], Deniaud and Cheng [5], Adhikary
and Mutsuyoshi [6], Zhang and Hsu [7], Colotti et al. [8], and Sayed
et al. [9].
According to the existing models, it is impossible to predict the
failure mode of FRP reinforcement, because of the inuence of var-
ious factors such as interface debonding [10]. Previous studies have
focused on the properties of the composites themselves, ignoring
the inuence of the failure mode on the effective strain in the
FRP. In addition, the existing models do not take into account the

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.02.044
0950-0618/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
170 A.M. Sayed et al. / Construction and Building Materials 59 (2014) 169179

Nomenclature

A aramid Gxy, Gyz and Gxz the shear modulus of the FRP sheet for three
a the shear span planes
b beam width Gf concrete fracture energy
C carbon hf height of the FRP sheet
d beam depth Sf spacing between FRP sheet from center to cen-
df the effective depth of FRP sheet ter
Ef the elastic modulus of the FRP sheet tf the total thickness of FRP
Ex, Ey and Ez the elastic modulus of the FRP sheet in x-, y- and Wf width of FRP sheet
z-directions, respectively mxy, mxz and myz Poissons ratio for three planes
Ec the modulus of elasticity of the concrete ef,u ultimate strain of FRP sheet
fr the tensile strength of concrete ef,e the effective strain of FRP sheet
ff,u ultimate tensile strength of FRP sheet BF debonding failure
G glass CC concrete crushing
TR tensile rupture failure

inuence of some dimensions, such as the beam width and the Unlike the other existing models, the model proposed by Sayed
height of the FRP sheet. et al. [9], based on the results of FE simulations, uses a different
Because the existing models ignore the effect of the failure equation for the FRP shear contribution. This model considers the
mode and the type of FRP sheet on the ultimate shear behavior, parameters that may inuence the shear capacity, b, tf, fc0 , hf, d, a/
it is difcult to use the existing models to accurately predict the d, Wf/Sf and Ef. Moreover the model is purely empirical and is sui-
shear capacity of RC beams strengthened with FRP. Moreover, the ted for all failure modes without any constraints since Sayed et al.
existing models only predict the minimum shear capacity, depend- [9] has not taken the different failure modes into consideration.
ing on the type of failure (debonding failure or tensile rupture); The FRP shear contribution is formulated in three equations,
they cannot predict which types of failure will occur. depending on the type of strengthening (side bonding, U-jacketing,
Therefore, the prediction of the shear capacity of RC beams or completely wrapped), as shown in Eqs. (3)(5).
strengthened with FRP should consider the aforementioned factors For side bonding:
and the potential failure modes. In this study, 3D FE simulation 0:30 00:50
was used to predict the ultimate shear capacity of FRP-strength- 0:078S0:21
f d fc
ef ;e 0:21 0:21 0:10 0:50 0:666
3
ened RC beams. A parametric study was conducted to examine W f b hf Ef t f
the inuence of the factors considered on the shear capacity and
failure mode. Based on the results of the parametric study, a pre- For U-jacketing:
diction model is proposed that considers the parameters that inu- 0:25 0:25 00:55
0:0445S0:59
f d b fc
ence the shear capacity and failure mode of an FRP-strengthened ef ;e 0:25 t 0:666 E0:50 h0:05
4
beam. The proposed model includes the beam width, the concrete W 0:59
f a f f f
strength, the FRP thickness, the height of the FRP sheet, the
For a completely wrapped beam:
strengthening conguration (completely wrapped, U-jacketing, or
0:45 0:30 00:60
side bonding), and the elastic modulus of the FRP reinforcement. 0:285S0:59
f d b fc
In addition, a database of the results of tests on 307 RC beams re- ef ;e 0:59 0:45 0:666 0:666
5
W f a tf Ef
ported in the literature [6,7,1148] was assembled for use in veri-
fying the accuracy of the proposed model and the commonly used Based on the database of test results for 274 RC beams strength-
models and design guidelines. ened with FRP sheets in various congurations, the above model
proved to be more accurate than the other commonly used models
2. Existing models [14] because this model considers most of the parameters that are
ignored in the other models [9].
According to all existing design models [19], the designed shear Although the above model yields accurate results overall, com-
capacity Vn of an FRP strengthened RC beam is calculated from: pared to other existing models, it still has two drawbacks. The rst
drawback is that it cannot predict the failure modedebonding or
Vn Vc Vs Vf 1
rupture of the FRP sheetwhich may result in large errors in pre-
where Vc is the contribution of concrete, Vs is the contribution of the dicting the shear capacity of a specic specimen. The second draw-
steel stirrups, and Vf is the contribution of the FRP. Vc and Vs are cal- back is that it does not consider the type of ultimate strain in one
culated according to the provisions in existing RC design codes of type of FRP sheet in the case of a rupture failure. For the tensile
ACI-318 [49]. rupture failure mode, the ultimate strain (ef,u) must also be consid-
The various existing models differ primarily in how the FRP ered to take into consideration to reect the difference in the value
contribution to the shear capacity, Vf, is calculated. The models of the ultimate tensile strength (ff,u) for the type of FRP
proposed by ACI-440 [1] and most of the other existing models reinforcement.
adopt the following equation to calculate the contribution of FRP:
2W f t f Ef ef ;e df 3. ANSYS nite element model study
Vf 2
Sf
3.1. Concrete modeling and properties
Although the various existing models use the same equation for
calculating the contribution of FRP to the shear capacity, they differ The commercial nite element program ANSYS was used in this
in how they dene the effective strain in the FRP (ef,e). analysis. Solid 65 elements [50] were used to model the concrete.
 A.M. Sayed et al. / Construction and Building Materials 59 (2014) 169179
This type of element has eight nodes with three degrees of freedom
at each node and translations in the nodal x-, y- and z-directions.
This element is capable of plastic deformation, cracking in three
orthogonal directions, and crushing. To model the concrete, ANSYS
requires that linear isotropic and multi-linear isotropic material
properties be entered, as well as some additional concrete material
properties, to simulate real concrete behavior.
The shear transfer coefcient bt represents the condition of the
cracked face. The value of bt ranges from 0.0 to 1.0, with 0.0 repre-
senting a smooth crack and 1.0 representing a rough crack [51,52].
In the present study, the shear transfer coefcient of an open crack,
bt = 0.2 [53], and the shear transfer coefcient of a closed crack,
bc = 0.8, were adopted [54].
The modulus of elasticity
p of the concrete can be calculated from
the equation Ec = 4700 fc0 , and the
ptensile
strength can be calcu-
lated from the equation fr = 0.62 fc0 . A value of 0.2 was used for
the Poissons ratio of concrete. The compressive uniaxial stress
strain values for the concrete model were obtained from the fol-
lowing equations for the multi-linear isotropic stressstrain curve
for the concrete [53,54]:
2fc0 Ec e
Ec fel =eel ; e0 and f
Ec 1 e=eo 2
where fel is the stress at the elastic strain (eel) in the elastic range
0 [58] have received widespread acceptance and are considered
(f 0.30fc ), e0 is the strain at the ultimate compressive strength,
pel=
fc0 is the compressive strength of the concrete from tests on cylin-
ders and f is the stress at any strain e.
The maximum size of the concrete elements was taken as
50 mm in length, 20 mm in height, and 20 mm in width.
3.2. Steel reinforcement and steel plates: modeling and properties
Link 8 elements [50] were used to model the steel reinforce-
ment. This type of element is a 3D spar element with two nodes
and three degrees of freedom for each node. This element is also
capable of plastic deformation. A perfect bond between the
concrete and the steel reinforcement is assumed as in the pres-
ent study the steel reinforcing is connected between nodes of
each adjacent concrete solid element, so the two materials
shared the same nodes. In the nite element model, the rebar
was assumed to be a bilinear, isotropic, elastic and perfectly
plastic material that behaves identically in tension and compres-
sion, with an elastic modulus equal to 210 GPa and a Poissons
ratio of 0.3. A yield stress of 360 MPa was assumed for the
longitudinal reinforcement and 240 MPa for the vertical
reinforcement.
Solid 45 elements [50] were used for the steel plates at the sup-
ports for the beam. This type of element has eight nodes with three
degrees of freedom at each node. The steel plates incorporated into
the nite element models were assumed to be linearly elastic
materials with an elastic modulus of 210 GPa and a Poissons ratio
of 0.3.
3.3. Modeling and properties of FRP composites
Solid 46 elements [50], which are layered solid elements, were
used to model the FRP composites. This type of element allows for
up to 100 different material layers, with different orientations and
orthotropic material properties in each layer [55,56]. The element
has three degrees of freedom at each node.
Because FRP composites are orthotropic materials, their proper-
ties may be different in different directions. Eqs. (7) and (8) show
the relationship between mxy and myx [56,50].
1  m2xy Ey =Ex  m2yz Ez =Ey  m2xz Ez =Ex  2mxy myz mxz Ez =Ex
171
Ex Ey Ez or Ey E
Gxy Gxz ; Gyz and myx y mxy 8
Ex Ey 2mxy Ex 21 myz Ex
In this study, the FRP composites were assumed to have linearly
elastic properties. Poissons ratio values of mxy = mxz = 0.22 and
myz = 0.30 [57] were assumed. These are values that have been
widely used in previously published studies on this subject.
3.4. Contact modeling
The contact between FRP and concrete was modeled using a set
of TARGE170 and CONTA174 contact elements, which function on
the basis of Coulombs friction model and can generate a gap be-
tween interface elements when tensile stresses are detected. In
the basic Coulomb friction model, two contacting surfaces can car-
ry shear stresses. The Coulomb friction model is dened as slim =
a + lP, where slim is the limit shear stress, a is the contact adhesion,
P is the contact normal pressure and l is the coefcient of friction
[50]. In the case without normal pressure P = 0, the contact cohe-
sion is assumed to be a = smax.
The behavior of the FRP-to-concrete interface is simulated by a
relationship between the bond stress s and the relative slip S. The
6
relationships for the maximum bond stress (smax = 1.5 bw  ft) and
the corresponding slip (S0 = 0.0195 bw  ft) presented in Lu et al.
accurate representations of a bond stressslip model that can be
incorporated into an FE analysis. The width ratio factor is
bw = ((2.25  Wf/Sf)/(1.25 + Wf/Sf))0.5, and ft is the tensile strength
p
(ft = 0.62 fc0 ). The contact slip at the completion of debonding is
given by the equation Smax = 2 Gf/smax, where Gf is the interfacial
p
fracture energy Gf 0:308 b2w ft .
3.5. Structural model studies
Fifty-eight RC beams with variable cross sections and lengths of
2,400 mm, as shown in Fig. 1, were considered in this study. The
beams were designed to be simply supported over a clear span of
2300 mm and subjected to four-point loading. The longitudinal
reinforcement of the beams consisted of tension rebars with an
area ratio of 2.05% and compression rebars with an area ratio of
0.41%. The yield strength of the longitudinal reinforcement was
360 MPa. The spacing between the stirrup bars (8 mm in diameter)
was 200 mm, and the yield strength was 240 MPa. The shear span
was 650 mm, and the shear span-to-depth ratio was 1.80. Table 1
shows the parameters of the beams evaluated in the study and the
ultimate shear loads and possible failure modes, as determined
from the FE simulation and analysis. The criteria for deciding dif-
ferent parameters of 58 FRP strengthened beams is that these spec-
imens can determine the type of failure mode which has not been
considered in the earlier work by Sayed et al. [9].
4. Parametric study and prediction of failure mode of RC beams
based on FE simulation
A parametric study is carried out to evaluate the inuence of
parameters on the prediction of failure mode of RC beams in a
3D FE simulation, which comprises FRP thickness (tf), width of
beam (b), height of FRP sheet (hf), modulus of elasticity of the
FRP conguration (Ef) and concrete strength(fc0 ). From the existing
models such as Triantallou and Antonopoulos [2], Matthys and
Triantallou [3], Deniaud and Cheng [5], Adhikary and Mutsuyoshi
[6], and Zhang and Hsu [7] it can be seen that the aforementioned
parameters inuence greatly on the prediction of failure mode.
positive 7
Therefore the combined effect of these parameters is taken into
172 A.M. Sayed et al. / Construction and Building Materials 59 (2014) 169179

Fig. 1. Geometrical details of the RC beams.

Table 1
Summary of beams evaluated in the present study and results.

Beam specimen Geometric data Concrete fc0 (MPa) External shear reinforcement Vn Num. (kN) Failure mode
b (mm) d (mm) tf (mm) Wf (mm) hf (mm) Sf (mm) ff,u (MPa) Ef (GPa)
S-t-1 200 360 30 0.4 100 400 200 3000 200 188.8 BF
S-t-2 200 360 30 0.5 100 400 200 3000 200 198.8 BF
S-t-3 200 360 50 0.1 100 320 200 3000 200 184.0 TR
S-t-4 200 360 50 0.2 100 320 200 3000 200 196.0 TR
S-t-5 200 360 50 0.3 100 320 200 3000 200 204.4 TR
S-E-6 200 360 30 0.2 100 400 200 2800 165 170.1 BF
S-E-7 200 360 30 0.2 100 400 200 3990 244 179.8 BF
S-E-8 200 360 30 0.1 100 400 200 2800 165 159.8 TR
S-E-9 200 360 30 0.1 100 400 200 3500 230 166.6 TR
S-E-10 200 360 30 0.1 100 400 200 3990 244 169.8 TR
S-b-11 160 360 30 0.2 1 400 1 3000 200 203.5 BF
S-b-12 240 360 30 0.2 1 400 1 3000 200 228.3 TR
S-b-13 300 360 30 0.2 1 400 1 3000 200 245.6 TR
S-b-14 360 360 30 0.2 1 400 1 3000 200 265.4 TR
S-fc-15 200 360 20 0.2 100 400 200 3000 200 153.4 BF
S-fc-16 200 360 25 0.2 100 400 200 3000 200 167.4 BF
S-fc-17 200 360 40 0.2 100 400 200 3000 200 191.5 BF
S-fc-18 200 360 25 0.1 100 400 200 3000 200 151.7 TR
S-fc-19 200 360 40 0.1 100 400 200 3000 200 179.8 TR
S-hf-20 200 360 20 0.2 1 240 1 3000 200 157.3 BF
S-hf-21 200 360 20 0.2 1 320 1 3000 200 167.6 BF
S-hf-22 200 360 20 0.2 1 400 1 3000 200 184.4 BF
S-hf-23 200 360 50 0.2 1 240 1 3000 200 215.4 TR
S-hf-24 200 360 50 0.2 1 320 1 3000 200 236.9 TR
S-hf-25 200 360 50 0.2 1 400 1 3000 200 260.9 TR
U-t-1 200 360 30 0.4 100 400 200 3000 200 256.8 BF
U-t-2 200 360 30 0.5 100 400 200 3000 200 270.1 BF
U-t-3 200 360 50 0.1 100 320 200 3000 200 233.1 TR
U-t-4 200 360 50 0.2 100 320 200 3000 200 256.7 TR
U-t-5 200 360 50 0.3 100 320 200 3000 200 273.1 TR
U-E-6 200 360 30 0.2 100 400 200 2800 165 216.8 BF
U-E-7 200 360 30 0.2 100 400 200 3990 244 235.8 BF
U-E-8 200 360 30 0.1 100 400 200 2800 165 203.8 TR
U-E-9 200 360 30 0.1 100 400 200 3500 230 216.8 TR
U-E-10 200 360 30 0.1 100 400 200 3990 244 225.3 TR
U-b-11 160 360 30 0.2 1 400 1 3000 200 234.5 BF
U-b-12 240 360 30 0.2 1 400 1 3000 200 279.1 TR
U-b-13 300 360 30 0.2 1 400 1 3000 200 311.0 TR
U-b-14 360 360 30 0.2 1 400 1 3000 200 343.9 TR
U-fc-15 200 360 20 0.2 100 400 200 3000 200 193.8 BF
U-fc-16 200 360 25 0.2 100 400 200 3000 200 212.4 BF
U-fc-17 200 360 40 0.2 100 400 200 3000 200 254.5 BF
U-fc-18 200 360 25 0.1 100 400 200 3000 200 187.4 TR
U-fc-19 200 360 40 0.1 100 400 200 3000 200 234.5 TR
U-hf-20 200 360 20 0.2 1 240 1 3000 200 178.3 BF
U-hf-21 200 360 20 0.2 1 320 1 3000 200 199.4 BF
U-hf-22 200 360 20 0.2 1 400 1 3000 200 221.9 BF
U-hf-23 200 360 50 0.2 1 240 1 3000 200 256.4 TR
U-hf-24 200 360 50 0.2 1 320 1 3000 200 292.9 TR
U-hf-25 200 360 50 0.2 1 400 1 3000 200 335.9 TR
W-C-1 200 360 30 0.1 100 400 200 2300 150 238.0 TR
W-C-2 200 360 30 0.1 100 400 200 2500 165 244.8 TR
W-C-3 200 360 30 0.1 100 400 200 3500 230 266.8 TR
W-A-4 200 360 30 0.2 100 400 200 1675 73.0 195.2 TR
W-A-5 200 360 30 0.2 100 400 200 1750 75.9 197.2 TR
W-A-6 200 360 30 0.2 100 400 200 2000 87.0 201.1 TR
W-A-7 200 360 30 0.2 100 400 200 2100 91.0 203.8 TR
W-A-8 200 360 30 0.2 100 400 200 2750 120 213.9 TR

Note: tf is the total thickness of FRP sheet, and for cases of Wf and Sf = 1 that meaning fully (continuous) bonded with FRP sheet.
 A.M. Sayed et al. / Construction and Building Materials 59 (2014) 169179 173

three consecutive ratios such as FRP thickness to the beam width, 400
TR<0.001 BF 0.001 Tensile rupture
FRP height to the beam width and elastic modulus of the FRP sheet

Shear load (kN)

350 Debonding failure
to the concrete strength in accordance with the existing models.
300

4.1. Inuence of the ratio of the FRP thickness to the beam width 250
200
The results of the FE simulation indicate that when the ratio of
150
the FRP thickness to the beam width is less than 0.001, tensile rup-
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025
ture failure of the FRP occurs. If this ratio is greater than or equal to tf / b
0.001, debonding failure occurs, as shown in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2. Inuence of the FRP thickness to beam width ratio based on the FE
4.2. Inuence of the ratio of the FRP height to the beam width simulation.

The ratio of the FRP height to the beam width has a signicant
400
effect on the failure mode of the strengthened beams. If this ratio is TR <1.5 BF 1.5 Tensile rupture

Shear load (kN)

360
less than 1.5, the failure of the tested beam is due to tensile rupture Debonding failure
320
of the FRP, whereas if it is greater than or equal to 1.5, debonding
failure occurs, as shown in Fig. 3. 280
240

4.3. Inuence of the ratio of the elastic modulus of the FRP sheet to the 200
concrete strength 160
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
hf / b
The ratio of the modulus of elasticity of the FRP sheet to the
concrete strength may be considered one of the major parameters Fig. 3. Inuence of the FRP height to beam width ratio based on the FE simulation.
affecting the failure mode of FRP-strengthened beams. The results
of this study indicate that the value of this parameter that differen-
tiates the failure modes is 6666. When the ratio of the modulus of 280
Tensile rupture
elasticity of the FRP to the concrete strength is less than this value,
Shear load (kN)

Debonding failure
the failure is a tensile rupture of the FRP sheet; otherwise, it is a 240
debonding failure, as shown in Fig. 4.
200

4.4. Prediction of the shear failure mode of RC beams based on the FE 160
simulation results TR < 6666 BF 6666
120
Based on the FE simulation results for the 58 beams modeled in 3000 5000 7000 9000 11000
this study and 55 beams modeled by Sayed et al. [9], it can be con- Ef/f c
cluded that FRP-strengthened beams fail in either tensile rupture
Fig. 4. Inuence of the elastic modulus of FRP to concrete strength ratio based on FE
of the FRP or debonding of the FRP from the sides of the RC beams. simulation.
In the model proposed in this study, all of the variables considered
in the existing models are considered and combined together
(multiplicatively) in a single equation referred to as the coefcient
400
of failure mode (CFM). The CFM can only be used for beams TR<10 BF 10 Tensile rupture
360
Shear load (kN)

strengthened by side bonding and U-jacketing of FRP sheets: Debonding failure

320
tf  Ef  hf 280
CFM 2
9
b  fc0 240
200
The relationship between shear load and coefcient of failure
mode with respect to tensile rupture and debonding failure based 160
on FE simulation can be seen from Fig. 5. Because CFM combines 120
the contributions of the ratios described in Sections 4.14.3 and 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
because CFM is essentially the product of all of those ratios, a value Cofficient of failure mode (CFM)
of 10 separates the debonding and rupture failure modes. A CFM
Fig. 5. Relation between shear load and coefcient of failure mode with respect to
value less than 10 indicates that the likely failure mode is tensile tensile rupture and debonding failure based on FE simulation.
rupture, while a value of 10 or more indicates that debonding fail-
ure is likely.
not reported mode of failure. The collected tests differ in terms
5. Comparison with experimental results of geometry, concrete strength, and reinforcement ratios, with a
wide range of geometrical and mechanical characteristics. The
To examine the reliability and validity of the proposed new main geometric and material properties of the test data have been
model, an extensive verication is carried out using a series of considered in Table 2.
experimental data available in the literature. The database consid- A graphical representation of the numerical comparison is
ered is composed of 220 experimental tests, which includes 95 shown in Fig. 6. In this gure, the proposed model takes into con-
beams strengthened by FRP side bonding and 125 beams strength- sideration separately the different modes of failure for the different
ened by FRP U-jacketing. The database includes 140 beams have shear strengthening congurations, i.e., beams strengthened by
debonding failure, 33 beams have tensile rupture and 47 beams side bonding and beams strengthened by U-jacketing. In this
174 A.M. Sayed et al. / Construction and Building Materials 59 (2014) 169179

Table 2
Summary of the tested beams from the experimental studies in the available literature.

Author Year Number of specimens Type of section Internal shear Strengthening scheme and type of FRP
reinforcement
Rec. T-section With Without Two-Side bonding U-jacketing Complete wrapped
Abdel-Jaber et al. [11] 2003 5 5 5 5C
Adhikary and Mutsuyoshi [6] 2004 5 5 5 3C 2C
Al-Sulaimani et al. [12] 1994 4 4 4 4C
Allam and Ebeido [13] 2003 13 13 13 5C 8C
Beber and Campos Filho [14] 2005 22 22 22 9C 10 C 3C
Bukhari et al. [15] 2010 4 4 4 4C
Carolin and Taljsten [16] 2005 13 13 2 11 10 C 3C
Chaallal et al. [17] 1998 4 4 4 4C
Grande et al. [18] 2009 7 7 7 2C 2C 3C
Kamiharako et al. [19] 1997 6 6 6 1 C+1 A 2 C+2 A
Khalifa and Nanni [20] 2000 20 15 5 2 18 1C 18 C 1C
Lim [21] 2010 3 3 3 3C
Pellegrino and Modena [22] 2002 6 6 6 6C
Sato et al. [23] 1996 5 5 1 4 2C 3C
Tljsten [24] 2003 5 5 5 5C
Triantallou [25] 1998 6 6 6 6C
Uji [26] 1992 4 4 4 4C
Zhang et al. [27] 2004 15 15 15 14 C 1C
Zhang and Hsu [7] 2005 7 7 7 3 C+4 G
Adhikary et al. [28] 2004 8 8 8 3 C + 3A 1 C+1 A
Altin et al. [29] 2009 6 6 6 6C
Bousselham and Chaallal [30] 2006 16 16 9 7 16 C
Deniaud and Cheng [31] 2001 4 4 3 1 4C
Diagana et al. [32] 2003 8 4 4 8 4C 4C
Gamino et al. [33] 2010 5 5 5 5C
Islam et al. [34] 2005 1 1 1 1C
Leung et al. [35] 2007 10 10 10 4C 6C
Monti and Liotta [36] 2007 14 14 14 13 C 1C
Norris et al. [37] 1997 2 2 2 2C
Pellegrino and Modena [38] 2006 8 8 8 8C
Taerwe et al. [39] 1997 5 5 5 4C 1C
Xuesong and Zhongfan [40] 2004 8 8 8 8C
Alagusundaramoorthy et al. [41] 2003 12 12 12 12 C
Araki et al. [42] 1997 8 8 8 5 C+3 A
Cao et al. [43] 2005 4 4 1 3 1 C+3 G
Funakawa et al. [44] 1997 3 3 3 3C
Ianniruberto and Imbimbo [45] 2004 6 6 6 6G
Miyajima et al. [46] 2005 4 4 4 4C
Ono et al. [47] 1997 4 4 4 4C
Umezu et al. [48] 1997 17 17 17 3 C + 14 A

Note: C = carbon, A = aramid and G = glass.

Increase in shear load (kN)

600
Vn Experimental (kN)

TR BF Debonding failure
160
CFM<10 CFM 10 Tensile rupture
400 Not reported 140 U-jacketing-BF
U-jacketing-TR
200 120
Side bonding-BF
Side bonding-TR
100
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 80
Cofficient of failure mode (CFM) 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Width of beam (mm)
Fig. 6. Predicted mode of failure in comparison with the experimental values.
Fig. 7. Inuence of the beam width by the FE simulations.

gure, the line corresponding to CFM = 10 is shown. The deviations

of the theoretical values from the experimental values are also
reported. As the gure shows, almost all of the results fall within
these bounds, and the average values indicated by the proposed
model are very close to the experimental results.
The error associated with the models prediction of the failure
mode was less than 7.14% for debonding failure and 6.06% for ten-
sile rupture. These values show that, from a statistical perspective,
the proposed model is equally reliable for all of the shear strength-
ening congurations considered in the analysis.
6. Parametric study and prediction of the shear capacity of RC
beams based on FE simulation
Based on the analysis of the CFM, it can be concluded that from
studying the effects of individual parameters separately for the
debonding and tensile rupture failure cases, a new model that pre-
dicts the failure mode and the shear capacity of RC beams strength-
ened with FRP sheets can be proposed.
 A.M. Sayed et al. / Construction and Building Materials 59 (2014) 169179 175

Increase in shear load (kN)

Increase in shear load (kN)

140 110
U-jacketing-TR
120 90 U-jacketing-BF
U-jacketing-BF
U-jacketing-TR
100 Side bonding-TR Side bonding-BF
Side bonding-BF 70 Side bonding-TR
80

60 50

40
30
0.08 0.14 0.20 0.26 0.32 0.38 0.44 0.50 0.56
160 180 200 220 240 260 280
Thickness of FRP sheet (mm)
E frp (GPa)
Fig. 8. Inuence of the FRP thickness by the FE simulations.
Fig. 11. Inuence of the elastic modulus of the FRP for side bonding and U-jacketing
by the FE simulations.
Increase in shear load (kN)

130

110

Increase in shear load (kN)

U-jacketing-BF
150
90 U-jacketing-TR 140
Side bonding-BF 130
70
Side bonding-TR 120
50 110
100 Wrapped-CFRP
30 90
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Wrapped-AFRP
80
Concrete strength f c (MPa)
70
70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230
Fig. 9. Inuence of the concrete strength as predicted by the FE simulations.
E frp (GPa)

Fig. 12. Inuence of the elastic modulus of the FRP for completely wrapped by the
Increase in shear load (kN)

200 FE simulations.
180 U-jacketing-TR
U-jacketing-BF
160
Side bonding-TR
140 analysis resulted in higher R2 values than other types of regression.
Side bonding-BF
120 The power regression line was used because it yielded a more
100 realistic prediction of the FRPs contribution to the beams shear
80 capacity, as shown in Fig. 7.
60
40
220 260 300 340 380 420 460 6.2. Inuence of the FRP thickness
Height of FRP sheet (mm)
The thickness of FRP is the main factor that affects the strength
Fig. 10. Inuence of the height of the FRP as studied by the FE simulations. and the stiffness of the strengthening material. As Fig. 8 shows, the
effective strain decreases as the FRP thickness increases. According
A parametric study was carried out to evaluate the effects of
to the FE simulation results, an increase in the FRP thickness in-
those parameters on the shear capacity and effective strain of
creases the shear strength of RC beams strengthened by side-
FRP-strengthened RC beams. The parameters included the beam
bonded FRP sheets by t0:35 f and t0:334
f with respect to debonding
width, the concrete strength, the FRP thickness, the strengthening
and tensile rupture failure, respectively, while in the case of U-jac-
conguration, the height of the FRP sheet, and the elastic modulus
keting, the increases are t 0:334
f and t 0:32
f for debonding and tensile
of the FRP sheet.
rupture failure, respectively. In addition, it appears that the FRP
thickness has the same effect on the failure mode.
6.1. Inuence of the beam width

The beam width is an important factor in the strength and the 6.3. Inuence of concrete strength
stiffness of an FRP-strengthened beam. From Eq. (9), it is clear that
an increase in the beam width signicantly decreased the CFM, The concrete strength is also an important factor in the strength
which means that a large RC beam width makes tensile rupture and the stiffness of the strengthening material. According to the FE
of the FRP sheet the likely failure mode. According to the FE simu- simulation results, the inuence of the concrete strength on the
lation results, an increase in the beam width increases the shear likelihood of tensile rupture is greater than the inuence on the
strength of an RC beam strengthened by side bonding of an FRP likelihood of debonding failure. According to the FE simulation re-
sheet by b0.3 and b0.2 for debonding and tensile rupture failure, sults, an increase in the concrete strength increases the shear
respectively, while in the case of U-jacketing, the increases are strength of RC beams strengthened by side-bonded FRP sheet by
0:45 0:50
b0.23 and b0.28 for debonding and tensile rupture failure, respec- fc0 and fc0 for debonding and tensile rupture failure, respec-
0:55
tively, as shown in Fig. 7. tively, while in the case of U-jacketing, the increases are fc0 and
0:6
These values were obtained using a power regression line to fc0 for debonding and tensile rupture failure, respectively, as
determine the inuence of the beam width. The power regression shown in Fig. 9.
176 A.M. Sayed et al. / Construction and Building Materials 59 (2014) 169179

0.025 beams. According to the FE simulation results, an increase in the

Effective strain from FE (f,e )

y = 2.0x Wrapped-CFRP
beam width results in increases in the shear strength of RC beams
y = 2.35x Wrapped-AFRP 0:85 0:90
0.020 strengthened by side-bonded FRP sheets of hf and hf for deb-
Side bonding-TR
onding and tensile rupture failure, respectively, while in the case
y = 0.84x 0:95 1:00
0.015 Side bonding-BF of U-jacketing, the increases are hf and hf for debonding and
U-jacketing-TR tensile rupture failure, respectively, as shown in Fig. 10. In addi-
0.010 U-jacketing-BF tion, it appears that the height of the FRP sheet has the same effect
y = 2.7x on the failure mode.
0.005 y = 0.365x y = 0.089x
6.5. Inuence of the elastic modulus of the FRP conguration
0.000
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
According to the literature, the elastic modulus of the FRP sheet
The corresponding parameters
(Ef) plays a major role in the design of RC beams shear strength-
Fig. 13. The relation between the effective strains obtained from the FE simulation ened with FRP sheets. The FE simulation results indicate that an in-
and the corresponding parameters. crease in the elastic modulus of the FRP causes nonlinear increases
of E0:45
f and E0:55
f in the strength of RC beams strengthened by both
side bonding and U-jacketing for debonding and tensile rupture,
2.5 respectively, as shown in Fig. 11.
Side bonding In cases in which an RC beam is completely wrapped by an FRP
2.0 U-jacketing sheet, the failure mode is always due to tensile rupture of the FRP
Complete wrapping sheet, and the contribution of the FRP sheet to the shear capacity of
VExp / VPred

1.5
1.15 the beam depends on the type of FRP material. For example, the
1.0 contributions are E0:51f and E0:44
f for carbon (CFRP) and aramid
0.85 (AFRP), respectively, as shown in Fig. 12.
0.5

0.0 6.6. Prediction of the shear capacity of RC beams based on the FE

0 200
Vn Experimental (kN)
Fig. 14. Predicted shear strength by the new model in comparison with the
experimental values.
6.4. Inuence of the height of the FRP sheet
The height of the FRP sheet may be the most inuential param-
eter inuencing the contribution of FRP to the shear capacity of RC
400 600 800 simulation results
The procedure for the calculation of Vf is different for each de-
sign case, depending on the effective strain (ef,e). The geometric
and conguration properties required to determine the shear
capacity from the FE simulations are shown in Figs. 712.
Based on the CFM model for predicting the failure mode and the
factors taken into account in this model, these factors inuence of
the effective strain. According to the model proposed by Sayed
et al. [9], the predicted shear capacity can be determined from

2.5 2.5
Side bonding Side bonding
2.0 U-jacketing
U-jacketing 2.0
Complete wrapping Complete wrapping
VExp / VPred

VExp / VPred

1.5 1.5
1.15 1.15
1.0 1.0
0.85 0.85
0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0
0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 800
Vn Experimental (kN) Vn Experimental (kN)
(a) (b)
2.5 2.5
Side bonding
Side bonding
2.0 U-jacketing
2.0 U-jacketing
VExp / VPred

Complete wrapping
VExp / VPred

Complete wrapping
1.5 1.5
1.15 1.15
1.0 1.0
0.85 0.85
0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0
0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 800
Vn Experimental (kN) Vn Experimental (kN)
(c) (d)
Fig. 15. Predicted shear strength by (a) ACI-440 [1]; (b) Triantallou and Antonopoulos [2]; (c) Matthys and Triantallou [3]; (d) Carolin and Tljsten [4] models in
comparison with the experimental values.
 A.M. Sayed et al. / Construction and Building Materials 59 (2014) 169179 177

Table 3
Average, r and COV of VExp/VPred for different models with the experimental results.

Models Side bonding U-jacketing Complete wrapped

Average r COV% Average r COV% Average r COV%
ACI-440 [1] 1.15 0.89 29.85 1.20 0.89 26.34 1.55 0.81 29.33
Triantallou and Antonopoulos [2] 0.96 0.93 26.13 1.10 0.87 23.31 1.05 0.84 32.38
Matthys and Triantallou [3] 1.16 0.88 54.43 1.15 0.87 24.06 1.12 0.85 35.44
Carolin and Tljsten [4] 1.16 0.87 32.58 1.31 0.78 26.40 1.05 0.87 28.30
Sayed et al. [9] 1.03 0.96 20.42 0.98 0.94 17.51 0.99 0.94 20.84
New model 1.02 0.97 16.70 1.01 0.96 15.08 1.04 0.97 13.42

the model parameters (effective height of the beam (d), shear span- considered consists of the results of 307 experimental tests, in-
to-depth ratio (a/d) and the type of wrapping scheme), although cludes the results of tests on 95 beams strengthened by FRP side
they do not take into consideration the predicted failure mode. bonding, 125 beams strengthened by FRP U-jacketing and 87
The results of the FE simulations of 58 beams conducted in this beams strengthened by complete FRP wrapping. The collected tests
study and the 55 beams analyzed by Sayed et al. [9] show that the differ in terms of the beam geometry, the concrete strength, the
increase in the shear capacity varies with the variation in b, tf, fc0 , hf, shear span-to-depth ratio and the reinforcement ratios and encom-
d, a/d, Wf/Sf and Ef. For the tensile rupture failure mode, the ulti- pass a wide range of geometric and mechanical characteristics. The
mate strain (ef,u) must also be considered to take into consideration main geometric and material properties of the experimental data
to reect the difference in the value of the ultimate tensile strength are summarizing in Table 2.
(ff,u) for the type of FRP reinforcement. The predictions obtained with the proposed new model for the
According to Eq. (2), which is used in most of the existing mod- validation data set were also compared with the predictions ob-
els, the proposed new model for predicting the effective strain is tained using the design equations summarized in previous studies.
applicable to RC beams externally strengthened with FRP rein- A graphical comparison of the experimental and numerical val-
forcement. The relation between the increase in the effective strain ues is shown in Fig. 14. In this gure, the proposed model takes the
and the parameters in the model is formulated in four equations, different types of shear-strengthening congurations into consid-
depending on the failure mode (tensile rupture or debonding fail- eration. For the beams strengthened with side bonding, U-jacket-
ure) and the type of strengthening conguration (side bonding or ing and complete wrapping, the mean values of VExp/VPred are
U-jacketing), as shown in Eqs. (10) and (11). 1.02, 1.01 and 1.04, respectively, and the corresponding coef-
For side bonding: cients of variation (COVS) are 16.70%, 15.08% and 13.42%, respec-
8 0:50 tively, and the coefcients of correlation, r, are 0.97, 0.96 and
> C ST S0:21 d0:30 fc0
< W 0:21 b0:20 h0:10 E0:45 t0:666 ef ;u TR for CFM < 10
> f
0.97, respectively. These values show that, from a statistical per-
f f f f
ef ;e 10 spective, the proposed model is equally reliable for all of the shear
>
> C SB S0:21 d0:30 fc0
0:45
strengthening congurations considered in the analysis.
: f
BF for CFM P 10
W 0:21 b0:30 h0:15 E0:55 t0:65
f f f f This gure includes two lines that indicate a 15% band about
For U-jacketing: the mean new model prediction and includes the reported experi-
8 mental values. It can be seen that most of the results fall within
0:60
> C UT S0:59 d0:25 b0:28 fc0 these bounds, and the average value of the new model prediction
< W 0:59 a0:25 E0:45 t0:68 ef ;u TR for CFM < 10
> f

f f f is found to be very similar to the experimental results.

ef ;e 11
>
> C UB S0:59 d0:25 b0:23 fc0
0:55
To evaluate the reliability of the predicted results, the results
: f
BF for CFM P 10
W 0:59
f
a0:25 h0:05
f E0:55
f
t0:667
f
obtained from the design models proposed by ACI 440 [1], Trianta-
llou and Antonopoulos [2], Matthys and Triantallou [3], and Car-
For completely wrapped beams, the relation between the
olin and Tljsten [4] are compared with the results obtained from
increase in the shear capacity and the model parameters is
the proposed new model and the experimental results, as shown in
formulated in two equations, depending on the type of FRP
Fig. 15.
reinforcement (CFRP and AFRP), as shown in Eq. (12).
Table 3 shows the average values, the correlation coefcients,
8 0:60
and the coefcients of variation of the ratio of VExp/VPred for the side
> C WC S0:59 d0:45 b0:30 fc0
>
< W 0:59 a0:45 E0:49 t0:667 ef ;u for CFRP
f

f f f
bonding, U-jacketing and complete wrapping validation congura-
ef ;e 12 tions, to illustrate how the predictions from the proposed new
>
> S0:59 d0:45 b0:30 fc0
0:60
: CWA0:59
f
ef ;u for AFRP model and the existing models compare with the experimental
W a0:45 E0:56 t 0:667
f f f
results.
where the constants CST, CSB, CUT, CUB, CWC and CWA are the linear The proposed new model yields the best average for VExp/VPred.
slopes of the relationships between the effective strain (ef,e) The corresponding coefcient of variation for the proposed new
obtained from the FE simulation results and the corresponding model is less than for the other models, and the coefcient of cor-
parameters, as shown in Fig. 13. For side bonding, the correspond- relation is higher than for the other models for beams strength-
ing CST and CSB are 2.7 and 0.365; for U-jacketing, the corresponding ened by side bonding, U-jacketing and complete wrapping. In
CUT and CUB are 0.84 and 0.089; and for completely wrapped beams, addition, the mode of failure is predicted with a high degree of
the corresponding CWC and CWA are 2.0 and 2.35, respectively. accuracy.

7. Comparison with the experimental results and the existing

models 8. Conclusions

To examine the reliability and validity of the proposed new In this study, an FE simulation approach was adopted to predict
model, an extensive verication was carried out using a series of the contribution of side bonding, U-jacketing and full wrapping of
experimental data available in the literature. The database FRP to the shear capacity of RC beams. Parametric studies were
178 A.M. Sayed et al. / Construction and Building Materials 59 (2014) 169179
conducted to evaluate the inuences of various parameters on the
shear capacity and failure modes of RC beams. A new model that
accounts for all of the studied parameters is proposed. The analyt-
ical results obtained from the proposed model were compared
with experimental results obtained from 307 RC beam tests re-
ported in the literature, covering a wide range of test geometries,
structural variations, and shear-strengthening congurations.
Based on this study, the following conclusions may be drawn:
(1) The model can predict the mode of failure (debonding failure
or tensile rupture) of FRP-strengthened RC beams and can be
used to determine the value of the effective strain at failure.
(2) Based on the comparisons with the experimental results, the
proposed model is more accurate than other available mod-
els in predicting the failure mode and determining the effec-
tive strain at failure. The mean values of VExp/VPred are 1.02,
1.01 and 1.04 for beams strengthened by side bonding, U-
jacketing and complete wrapping, respectively. The corre-
sponding coefcients of variation are 16.70%, 15.08% and
13.42%, respectively, and the coefcients of correlation are
0.97, 0.96 and 0.97, respectively. The error associated with
predicting the failure mode was less than 7.14% for debond-
ing failure and 6.06% for tensile rupture.
(3) By predicting the failure mode and the effective strain at fail-
ure, the proposed model can be used to guarantee that the
failure of FRP-strengthened beams is governed by FRP ten-
sile rupture, increasing the potential capacity of the FRP
composites.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the nancial support of the
National Key Basic Research Program of China (973 Program, No.
2012CB026200), the Jiangsu NSF (No. BK2010015) and the Na-
tional Science Foundation of China (NSFC, No. 51108074 and
51378109). Technical discussions with Dr. Mohammad Noori at
California Polytechnic State University are appreciated.
References
[1] ACI Committee 440. Guide for the design and construction of externally
bonded FRP systems for strengthening concrete structures (ACI 440.2R-08).
Farmington Hills (MI, USA): American Concrete Institute; 2008.
[2] Triantallou TC, Antonopoulos CP. Design of concrete exural members
strengthened in shear with FRP. J Compos Constr 2000;4(4):198205.
[3] Matthys S, Triantallou TC. Shear and torsion strengthening with externally
bonded FRP reinforcement. Compos Constr, A Real 2001:20312.
[4] Carolin A, Tljsten B. Theoretical study of strengthening for increased shear
bearing capacity. J Compos Constr 2005;9(6):497506.
[5] Deniaud C, Cheng JJR. Review of shear design methods for reinforced concrete
beams strengthened with ber reinforced polymer sheets. Can J Civil Eng
2001;28(2):27181.
[6] Adhikary BB, Mutsuyoshi H. Behavior of concrete beams strengthened in shear
with carbon-ber sheets. J Compos Constr 2004;8(3):25864.
[7] Zhang Z, Hsu CTT. Shear strengthening of reinforced concrete beams using
carbon-ber-reinforced polymer laminates. J Compos
2005;9(2):15869.
[8] Colotti V, Spadea G, Swamy RN. Analytical model to evaluate failure behavior
of plated reinforced concrete beams strengthened for shear. ACI Struct J
2004;101(6):75564.
[9] Sayed AM, Wang X, Wu Z. Modeling of shear capacity of RC beams
strengthened with FRP sheets based on FE simulation. J Compos Constr
2013;17(5):687701.
[10] Sas G, Tljsten B, Barros J, Lima J, Carolin A. Are available models reliable for
predicting the FRP contribution to the shear resistance of RC beams. J Compos
Constr 2009;13(6):51434.
[11] Abdel-Jaber MS, Walker PR, Hutchinson AR. Shear strengthening of reinforced
concrete beams using different congurations of externally bonded carbon
ber reinforced plates. Mater Struct 2003;36(259):291301.
[12] Al-Sulaimani GJ, Sharif A, Basunbul IA, Baluch MH, Ghaleb BN. Shear repair for
reinforced concrete by berglass plate bonding. ACI Struct J
1994;91(3):45864.
[13] Allam SM, Ebeido TI. Retrotting of RC beams predamaged in shear using CFRP
sheets. Alexandria Eng J 2003;42(1):87101.
[14] Beber AJ, Campos Filho A. CFRP composites on the shear strengthening of
reinforced concrete beams. IBRACON Struct J 2005;1(2):12834.
[15] Bukhari IA, Vollum RL, Ahmad S, Sagaseta J. Shear strengthening of reinforced
concrete beams with CFRP. Mag Concr Res 2010;62(1):6577.
[16] Carolin A, Taljsten B. Experimental study of strengthening for increased shear
bearing capacity. J Compos Constr 2005;9(6):48896.
[17] Chaallal O, Nollet MJ, Perraton D. Shear strengthening of RC beams by
externally bonded side CFRP strips. J Compos Constr 1998;2(2):1113.
[18] Grande E, Imbimbo M, Rasulo A. Effect of transverse steel on the response of
RC beams strengthened in shear by FRP: experimental study. J Compos Constr
2009;13(5):40514.
[19] Kamiharako A, Maruyama K, Takada K, Shimomura T. Evaluation of shear
contribution of FRP sheets attached to concrete beams. Proc 3rd int symp on
non-metallic (FRP) reinforcement for concrete struct, vol. 1. Japan: Japan
Concrete Institute; 1997. p. 46774.
[20] Khalifa A, Nanni A. Improving shear capacity of existing RC T-section beams
using CFRP composites. Cem Concr Compos 2000;22(3):16574.
[21] Lim DH. Shear behaviour of RC beams strengthened with NSM and EB CFRP
strips. Mag Concr Res 2010;62(3):21120.
[22] Pellegrino C, Modena C. Fiber reinforced polymer shear strengthening of
reinforced concrete beams with transverse steel reinforcement. J Compos
Constr 2002;6(2):10411.
[23] Sato Y, Ueda T, Kakuta Y, Tanaka T. Shear reinforcing effect of carbon ber
sheet attached to side of reinforced concrete beams. In: El-Badry MM, editor.
Proc 2nd int conf on advanced comp mat in bridges and struct
(ACMBS). Montreal: The Canadian Society for Civil Engineering; 1996. p.
6217.
[24] Tljsten B. Strengthening concrete beams for shear with CFRP sheets. Constr
Build Mater 2003;17(1):1526.
[25] Triantallou TC. Shear strengthening of reinforced concrete beams using
epoxy-bonded FRP composites. ACI Struct J 1998;95(2):10715.
[26] Uji K. Improving shear capacity of existing reinforced concrete members by
applying carbon ber sheets. Trans Jpn Conc Inst 1992;14:25365.
[27] Zhang Z, Hsu CTT, Moren J. Shear strengthening of RC deep beams using carbon
ber reinforced polymer laminates. J Compos Constr 2004;8(5):40314.
[28] Adhikary BB, Mutsuyoshi H, Ashraf M. Shear strengthening of reinforced
concrete beams using ber reinforced polymer sheets with bonded anchorage.
ACI Struct J 2004;101(5):6608.
[29] Altin S, Anil , Kopraman Y, Mertolu , Kara ME. Improving shear capacity and
ductility of shear decient RC beams using CFRP strips. J Reinf Plast Compos
2009;29(19):297591.
[30] Bousselham A, Chaallal O. Effect of transverse steel and shear span on the
performance of RC beams strengthened in shear with CFRP. Compos Part B:
Eng 2006;37(1):3746.
[31] Deniaud C, Cheng JJR. Sheer behavior of reinforced concrete T beams with
externally bonded ber reinforced polymer sheets. ACI Struct J
2001;98(3):38694.
[32] Diagana C, Li A, Gedalia B, Delmas Y. Shear strengthening effectiveness with
CFF strips. Eng Struct 2003;25(4):50716.
[33] Gamino AL, Sousa JLAO, Manzoli OL, Bittencourt TN. R/C Structures
strengthened with CFRP Part II: Analysis of shear models. IBRACON Struct
Mater J 2010;3(1):2449.
[34] Islam MR, Mansur MA, Maalej M. Shear strengthening of RC deep beams using
externally bonded FRP systems. Cem Concr Compos 2005;27(3):41320.
[35] Leung CKY, Chen ZF, Lee S, Ng M, Xu M, Tang JM. Effect of size on the failure of
geometrically similar concrete beams strengthened in shear with FRP strips. J
Compos Constr 2007;11(5):48796.
[36] Monti G, Liotta M. Tests and design equations for FRP strengthening in shear.
Constr Build Mater 2007;21(4):799809.
[37] Norris T, Saadatmanesh H, Ehsani MR. Shear and exural strengthening of R/C
beams with carbon ber sheets. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1997;123(7):90311.
[38] Pellegrino C, Modena C. Fiber reinforced polymer shear strengthening of
reinforced concrete beams: experimental study and analytical modeling. ACI
Struct J 2006;103(5):7208.
[39] Taerwe L, Khalil H, Matthys S. Behavior of RC beams strengthened in shear by
external CFRP sheets. Proc 3rd symp on non metallic (FRP) reinforcement for
concrete struct, vol. 1. Japan: Japan Concrete Institute; 1997. p. 48390.
[40] Xuesong F, Zhongfan C. Experimental research on shear strengthening of
Constr
reinforced concrete beams with externally bonded CFRP sheets. Ind Constr
2004;34(Suppl):8993.
[41] Alagusundaramoorthy P, Harik IE, Choo CC. Flexural behavior of R/C beams
strengthened with carbon ber reinforced polymer sheets or fabric. J Compos
Constr 2003;7(4):292301.
[42] Araki N, Matsuzaki Y, Nakano K, Kataka T, Fukuyama H. Shear capacity of
retrofted RC members with continuous bre sheets. Proc 3rd symp on non
metallic (FRP) reinforcement for concrete struct (FRPRCS-3), vol.
1. Japan: Japan Concrete Institute; 1997. p. 51522.
[43] Cao SY, Chen JF, Teng JG, Hao Z, Chen J. Debonding in RC beams shear
strengthened with complete FRP wraps. J Compos Constr 2005;9(5):41728.
[44] Funakawa I, Shimono K, Watanabe T, Asada S. Experimental study on shear
strengthening with continuous ber reinforcement sheet and methyl
methacrylate resin. Proc 3rd symp on non metallic (FRP) reinforcement for
concrete struct (FRPRCS-3), vol. 1. Japan: Japan Concrete Institute; 1997. p.
47582.
 A.M. Sayed et al. / Construction and Building Materials 59 (2014) 169179
[45] Ianniruberto U, Imbimbo M. Role of ber reinforced plastic sheets in shear
response of reinforced concrete beams: experimental and analytical results. J
Compos Constr 2004;8(5):41524.
[46] Miyajima H, Kosa K, Tasaki K, Matsumoto S. Shear strengthening of RC beams
using carbon ber sheets & its resistance mechanism. Proc 5th workshop on
safety and stability of infrastructures against environmental impacts, vol.
1. Manila: De La Salle University; 2005. p. 11425.
[47] Ono K, Matsumura M, Sakanishi S, Miyata K. Strength improvement of RC
bridge piers by carbon ber sheet. The 3rd int symp on non metallic (FRP)
reinforcement for concrete struct (FRPRCS-3), vol. 1. Japan: Japan Concrete
Institute; 1997. p. 56370.
[48] Umezu K, Fujita M, Nakai H, Tamaki K. Shear behavior of RC beams with
aramid ber sheet. Proc 3rd symp on non metallic (FRP) reinforcement for
concrete struct (FRPRCS-3), vol. 1. Japan: Japan Concrete Institute; 1997. p.
4918.
[49] ACI Committee 318. Building code requirement for structural concrete (ACI
318-11) and commentary. Farmington Hills (USA): American Concrete
Institute; 2011.
[50] ANSYS Users Manual, Version (12). Swanson Analysis Systems Inc.; 2009.
[51] Kwan AKH, Dai H, Cheung YK. Non-Linear seismic response of reinforced
concrete slit shear walls. J Sound Vibr 1999;226(4):70118.
179
[52] Terec L, Bugnariu T, Pastrav M. Non-linear analysis of reinforced concrete
frames strengthened with inlled walls. Rom J Mater 2010;40(3):21421.
[53] Kachlakev D, Miller T, Yim S. Finite element modeling of reinforced concrete
structures strengthened with FRP laminates. Res group, Final Rep SPR
316. USA: Oregon Dept of Transportation; 2001.
[54] Raongjant W, Jing M. Finite element analysis on lightweight reinforced
concrete shear walls with different web reinforcement. In: Proc 6th PSU-Eng
Conf (PEC-6). Thaliand: Prince of Songkla Univ.; 2008. p. 617.
[55] Gibson RF. Principles of composite material mechanics. New York: McGraw-
Hill Inc.; 1994.
[56] Kaw AK. Mechanics of composite materials. Boca Raton (Florida): CRC Press
LLC; 1997.
[57] Kachlakev D, McCurry D. Simulated full scale testing of reinforced concrete
beams strengthened with FRP composites: experimental results and design
model verication. Final Rep FHWA-OR-RD-00-19, SPR387. Salem,
Oregon: Oregon Dept of Transportation and US Dept of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration; 2000. p. 36.
[58] Lu XZ, Teng JG, Ye LP, Jiang JJ. Bond-slip models for FRP sheets/plates bonded
to concrete. Eng Struct 2005;27:92037.