See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222653092

RC two-way slabs strengthened with CFRP

strips: Experimental study and a limit analysis
approach

Article in Composite Structures June 2003

Impact Factor: 3.32 DOI: 10.1016/S0263-8223(03)00011-4

CITATIONS READS

57 264

3 authors:

Oualid Limam Gilles Foret

University of Tunis El Manar MINES ParisTech
21 PUBLICATIONS 159 CITATIONS 32 PUBLICATIONS 223 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Alain Ehrlacher
MINES ParisTech
102 PUBLICATIONS 680 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Alain Ehrlacher
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 17 July 2016
 Composite Structures 60 (2003) 467471
www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

RC two-way slabs strengthened with CFRP strips: experimental

study and a limit analysis approach
Oualid Limam *, Gilles Foret, Alain Ehrlacher
Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chauss
ees, LAMI, 68 avenue Blaise Pascal, Cit
e Descartes, Champs-sur-Marne, 77455 Marne-La-Vall
ee, France

Abstract
This paper deals with strengthening of reinforced concrete (RC) two-way slabs with carbon bre reinforced plastic (CFRP) strips
bonded to the tensile face. The rst part deals with an experimental study. The bre reinforced plastics (FRP) strengthened slab test
presents a failure mode with debonding of the external FRP strips from the slab. The second part deals with a limit analysis
modelling. The strengthened slab is designed as a three-layered plate. A simplied laminated plate model is used to describe the
behaviour of three-layered plate supported in four sides, which is subjected to a load in the centre. The upper bound theorem of limit
analysis is used to approximate the ultimate load capacity and identify the dierent collapse mechanisms. Experimental results are
compared with theoretical predictions.
2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Debonding; Reinforced concrete slabs; Limit analysis; Collapse mechanisms; Interface; Layer

1. Introduction comes essential for these structures. However, the plastic

The use of externally bonded bre reinforced plastics
(FRP) for strengthening bridges and other reinforced
concrete (RC) structures has received considerable at-
tention in recent years [1]. Several analytical and nu-
merical methods are available to describe and predict
the behaviour of externally bonded carbon bre rein-
forced plastic (CFRP) beams [2]. Experimental investi-
gations conducted by Teng et al. [3], Shahawy et al. [4],
Erik and Heernan [5] demonstrate the advantages of
strengthening of existing RC slabs using rectangular
FRP sheets or thin plates bonded to the tensile face. On
the other hand, a brittle and sudden failure due to del-
amination of FRP sheets or thin plates has also been
observed.
When applied to multi-layered plates, classical Kir-
chho model fails to take in to account shear stress at
the interfaces. A high order theory for plates has been
proposed to describe behaviour of RC slabs strength-
ened with composite patches see [6]. Failure of multi-
layered structures often occurs by delamination. As
consequence, analysis of separation between layers be-
*
Corresponding author. Fax: +33-164-153-741.
E-mail address: limam@lami.enpc.fr (O. Limam).
0263-8223/03/$ - see front matter 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0263-8223(03)00011-4
method of limit analysis based on the yield line theory,
remains a robust and powerful tool for the analysis of
RC slab problems [7]. The upper bound theorem of limit
analysis has been applied to RC beams strengthened
with composite material (see [8]).
In this paper, an experimental investigation on RC
two-way slabs strengthened with CFRP is conducted.
The strengthened RC slab is designed as a three layer
plate. The upper bound theorem of limit analysis is
applied with a simplied plate model for multi-layered
plate (M4
2n 1) [9]. The M4
2n 1 is a multi-
layered membrane plate model. It is used to describe the
dierent collapse mechanisms with failure modes in
layers and interfaces.
2. Experimental program and test results
In this program, two 7 cm  130 cm  170 cm RC
two-way slabs were tested. The internal steel grid rein-
forcement is with a 6 mm bar diameter spaced at 20 cm
in x- and y-directions. The concrete cover thickness is
about 17 mm. One slab is strengthened with external
(CFRP) strips bonded to the tensile face. The control
slab is kept without strengthening. The average 28-day
concrete compressive strength is about 30 MPa and its
468 O. Limam et al. / Composite Structures 60 (2003) 467471

modulus of elasticity is about 25 GPa. The steel tensile

yield stress strength is about 540 MPa and its modulus
of elasticity is about 200 GPa. When tested, the slab is
supported in four sides and subjected to a load in the
centre. Deection is captured in the centre. The data is
collected automatically. CFRP strips with 1.4 mm in
thickness, 5 cm in width and 150 cm in length were
bonded in the tension face of the slab in the y-direction
and CFRP strips with 1.4 mm in thickness, 5 cm in width
and 100 cm in length were bonded in the tension face of
the slab in the x-direction. The CFRP strips are spaced at
15 cm. The tensile strength of the CFRP is about 2800
MPa and its modulus of elasticity is about 160 GPa.
Before bonding the strips, the concrete surface was
roughened using an electrical wire brush and cleaned. Fig. 3. Debonding failure of FRP strengthened slab.
The ultimate loading capacity of the control (non-
strengthened) slab is about 48 KN. The ultimate load
capacity of the strengthened slab is about 120 KN. Fig. 3. Mechanical model
1 presents load deection curves. The non-strengthened
slab presents more ductility than the strengthened one. The rectangular RC slab strengthened by CFRP grid
It presents a failure mode with diagonal yield lines (see is designed as a three-layered plate, bottom layer is
Fig. 2). However, complete debonding of CFRP strips strips grid, the middle layer is the steel and the top layer
with some concrete which still bonded in it was observed is the compressive concrete. It has a thickness h, a length
in the FRP strengthened slab test (see Fig. 3). 2l and a width 2L (see Figs. 4 and 5). The CFRP grid is
considered as a membrane plate. The respective ply
thickness are e1 , e2 and e3 . A z-direction load Q is ap-
140 plied in the centre of the plate. The multi-layered plate is
120 non strengthed slab described as an open cylindrical domain X of R3 , with a
100 base x 2 R2 and three layers. (ex ; ey ; ez ) is an orthogonal
80
strengthed slab base vector of X with ex ; ey 2 x.
60 Interface shear
stress: 2 MPa
40 Interface shear
20 stress: 2,5 MPa

0 2 3
Neutral .Axis.
(e +e )/2 (Compressive concrete zone)
0 2 4 6

(Steel reinforcement)
(e1+e 2 )/2 (CFRP strips)
Fig. 1. The loaddeection curves and comparison with theoretical
results.
Fig. 4. RC slab section strengthened with CFRP strips.

Concrete CFRP grid

l

ey
-L L
ex
Q

-l

3
2 Steel
1

Fig. 2. Diagonal yield lines failure of the non-strengthened slab. Fig. 5. Three-layered rectangular plate.
 O. Limam et al. / Composite Structures 60 (2003) 467471 469

y i , i + 1
f
i , i +_ 1

x
Layer i+1

N i
interface i,i+1 i
yy
N yx
Layer i
N i
xy
interface i-1,i i
N xx
Layer i- 1
z
i 1, i

y
y
i 1, i

Fig. 6. Stress resultants related to M4
2n 1 model.

3.1. Velocity and stress elds of the proposed plate model it satisfy boundary limits. Let us dene the dissipate
functions as follows:
The proposed model is a multi-membrane plate i
model M4
2n 1, it has been developed by Philippe pN y sup N
n
y and ps y sup si;i1
y 1
i i
si;i1 2Gsi;i1
et al. [9]. It gives 2n 1 generalised velocity elds: U N 2GN
i

(Uai with a 2 f1; 2g) is the average displacement rate in ex

K 0 fQ=8UKA; Q
qU 6 Pd U g 2
and ey direction, with i 2 f1; 2; 3g; W3 is the overall av-
erage displacement rate in ez direction. i where the internal energy dissipation is given by
i
Stress resultants are given by (see Fig. 6): N (Nab x; y n Z n Z
X i;i1
X
with a; b 2 f1; 2g) is the membrane stress tensor in Pd ps D  dx pN n; ci ds
layer i; si (si;i1
a x; y with a 2 f1; 2g) is the inter-laminar i1 x i1 Cvi
shear stress at the interface i; i 1.
and the work done by the applied loading as the slab
The generalised strain velocities are given by


  deforms is given by Q
qU . qU is the generalised ve-
i i 1 oUa oUb locity associated with Q and Cvi  x is the set of velocity
e eab x; y with a; b 2 f1; 2g
2 oxb oxa discontinuities. n is the normal vector to Cvi . When Q 62
K 0 the slab decomposes.
is the in-surface deformation velocity tensor associated
to the membrane stress tensor at layer i;



i;i1 i;i1 i1 i ei ei1 oW3 4. Application to a rectangular three-layered plate
D Da Ua
Ua
2 oxa
4.1. Boundary conditions and collapse criteria
is the generalised velocity tensor associated to the inter-
laminar shear stress at the interface (i; i 1). The boundary conditions are given by U13 x; y 0
for x
L, U23 x; y 0 for x
l and W3 x; y 0 for
3.2. The upper bound theorem of limit analysis x; y in ox, boundary of x.
Consider, the next criteriaon generalised stress elds;
An estimation of the ultimate load follows from the i

N11c i
< N11 i
< N11t ; i

N22c i
< N22 i
< N22t ; i
jN12 i
j < N12c
upper bound theorem of limit analysis by equating the
rate of internal energy dissipation in the velocity dis- 3
continuities sets to the rate of work done by the applied
jsi;i1
1 j < si;i1
1c ; jsi;i1
2 j < si;i1
2c 4
loading as the slab deforms in this mechanism. The
i
upper bound theorem of limit [10,11] involves collapses where N11c is compressive strength in layer i and in the x-
i
kinematic elds with discontinuities in velocity elds, direction, N11t is tensile strength in layer i and in the x-
i;i1 i
denoted ci in layer i and D in the interface (i; i 1). direction, N22c is compressive strength in layer i and in
i
Velocity elds are kinematically admissible (KA) when the y-direction, N22t is tensile strength in layer i and in
470 O. Limam et al. / Composite Structures 60 (2003) 467471

i

the y-direction and N12c is the in-surface shear stress e2 e3 2L 2
strength in layer i. jQj P N 2 sin a N 12 cos a
L cos a 11t
The si;i1
1c is shear stress strength in the x-direction and L L
i;i1 2 2
s2c is shear stress strength in the y-direction between N 12 sin a N22t cos a
l
y0 l
y0
layer 1 and layer 2.


1 e1 e2 1 e1 e2
N11t sin a 1 2 N 12 cos a 1 2
4.2. Collapse mechanisms e e3 e e3

1 2

1 e e L
N 12 sin a 1 2
Collapse mechanisms result in a velocity discontinu- e e3 l
y0
ity in layers and interfaces. As indicated in Fig. 7, the
 
1 e1 e2 L
eld x is divided into four open sets x1 , x2 , x01 and x02 . N22t cos a 1 2
e e3 l
y0
In the case of layer mechanisms, they are rigid regions. 

An innity of collapse mechanisms are considered by 2 1 e1 e2
2y0 N11t N11t 1 2 5
varying the angle a. The velocity qU W3 0 is related e e3
to the load Q.
By considering the velocity discontinuities with layer
mechanisms, we get two other sucient conditions for
4.2.1. Layers mechanisms
i;i1 collapse.
We suppose that D 0, with i 2 f1; 2g. Consider
for example, the collapse mechanism which corresponds
4.2.2. Interface mechanism
to collapse of layer 1 and layer 2. A and B respectively in
In the interface mechanism, velocity discontinuities is
layer 1 and layer 2 represent the velocity discontinuities
considered in interfaces. The KA elds is given by
between x1 and x01 in x-direction. A0 and B0 respectively
3 2 1
in layer 1 and layer 2 represent the velocity discontinu- U 0; U 0 and U 0 in x:
ities between x2 and x02 in y-direction. The KA velocity    
1;2 c 1;2
c
eld is given by D in x1 ; D in x01 ;
0 0
3
U 0 in x1 ; x2 ; x01 and x02    
1;2 0 1;2 0
    D 0 in x2 ; D in x02
2 A=2 2
A=2 c
c0
U in x1 ; U in x01 ;    
0 0 2;3 e 2;3
e
    D in x1 ; D in x01 ;
2 0 2 0 0 0
U in x2 ; U in x02    

A0 =2
A0 =2 2;3 0 2;3 0
    D 0 in x2 ; D in x02
1 B=2 1
B=2 e
e0
U in x1 ; U in x01 ;
0 0 A sucient condition for collapse is
    
1 0 1 0
U in x2 ; U in x02 e1 e2 1;2 e2 e3

B0 =2
B0 =2 jQj P 4lLs1c 2L2 s1;2
2c 4lLs2;3
1c
L e1 e2

Velocity strain rate is qU w3 0; y w3 0; y with 2 3
e e 2 2;3

y0 6 y 6 y0 . Applying the upper bound theorem which 2 1 L s2c 6
e e2
gives a sucient condition for collapse:

4.2.3. Mechanisms mixed

2 n
In mixed mechanisms, the velocity discontinuities is
considered in one layer and one interface. Consider for
example a mixed mechanism which corresponds to col-
y0 lapse of layer 1 and interface (2,3). We suppose that
1' 1 1;2
D 0. A sucient condition for collapse is given by
y


e1 e2 2L 1
x jQj P N 1 sin a N 12 cos a
L cos a 11t

1 L 1 L 1
N 12 sin a N22t cos a 2y0 N11t 
l
y0 l
y0

e2 e3 2;3 e2 e3 2 2;3
2' 1 2Ll
l
y 0 Ls 1c L s 2c
e e2 e1 e2
Fig. 7. Denition of x1 , x2 , x01 and x02 . 7
 O. Limam et al. / Composite Structures 60 (2003) 467471
When considering velocity discontinuity with a mixed
mechanism, we obtain three other similar conditions
sucient for collapse.
5. Modelling and comparison with experimental results
The tension zone in concrete under the neutral axis is
neglected. An approximated method is used to calculate
the depth of the neutral axis. Failure can occur with
kinematic eld discontinuity in layer 1 (compressive
concrete), layer 2 (steel) or layer 3 (CFRP strips). Fail-
ure can occur with kinematic eld discontinuity in in-
terface (1,2): its separation of the external strengthening
membrane (CFRP strips) from the concrete. Failure can
occur also with kinematic eld discontinuity in interface
(2,3): the whole thickness of cover concrete is removed.
Numerical application shows that the dissipate energy
1 2
related to the in-surface shear stress strengths, N12c , N12c
3 2;3 2;3
and N12c can be neglected. s1c s2c is the concrete shear
stress strength, it is about 2.5 MPa. s1;2 1c r1 sm is the
shear stress strength at the interface 1,2 and in the x-
direction. s1;2
2c r2 sm is the shear stress strength at the
interface 1,2 and in the y-direction. r1 is the section
strength rate with CFRP strips in the x-direction and r2
is the section strength rate with CFRP strips in the y-
direction. For the present RC strengthened slab we
have: r1 r2 25%. sm is the shear stress strength at the
bonding interface between concrete and CFRP strips, it
is about 2.5 MPa.
When considering a 45, We have eight possible
collapse mechanisms and eight sucient condition for
failure including three possible layer mechanisms, four
mixed mechanisms and one interface mechanism.
The related ultimate loads are given by
Mechanisms Ultimate
loads (KN)
Layer 1 and 2 538
mechanisms 2 and 3 255
1 and 3 344
Mixed 1 and (2,3) 439
mechanisms 3 and (1,2) 189
2 and (1,2) 123
2 and (2,3) 341
Interface (1,2) and (2,3) 374
mechanism
According to experimental test, failure occurs with
strips debonding. The experimental ultimate load ca-
471
pacity is about 120 KN (See Fig. 1). According to the
present model failure occurs with a mixed mechanism
with CFRP strips debonding and steel yielding. The
ultimate load capacity given by the present model is
about 123 KN. Good agreement between theoretical
and experimental results is found.
6. Conclusion
Results of the experimental study indicate that ex-
ternally bonded CFRP plates can eciently used to
strengthen two-way RC slabs. Limit analysis approach
can predict correctly the ultimate load capacity of
CFRP bonded RC slabs. This analysis is validated by
comparison with the test results. The present model
gives eight possible collapse mechanisms including three
layer mechanisms, four layer mechanisms and one in-
terface mechanism. It gives also a simple sucient
conditions and the ultimate load capacity for every
collapse mechanism.
References
[1] Meir U. Bridge repair with high performance composite material.
Mater Tech 1987;4:1258.
[2] Smith ST, Teng JG. FRP-strengthed RC beams. II: assessment of
debonding strength models. Eng Struct 2002;24:397417.
[3] Teng JG, Lam L, Chan W, Wang J. Retrotting of decient RC
cantilever slabs using GFRP strips. J Comp Constr L 2000;4(2):
7584.
[4] Shahway MA, Beitelman T, Arockiasamy M, Sowrirajan R.
Experimental investigation on structural repair and strengthening
of damaged prestressed concrete slabs utilizing externally bonded
carbon laminates. Composites B 1996;27(34):21724.
[5] Erik MA, Heernan PJ. Reinforced concrete slabs externally
strengthened with FRP materials. In: Taerwe L, editor. Non-
metallic (FRP) reinforcement for concrete structures. London:
E&FN Spon; 1995. p. 50916.
[6] Rabinovitch O, Forstig Y. Strengthening of RC slabs with circular
composite patches a high-order approach. Compos Struct
2002;55:22538.
[7] Famiyesin OOR, Hossain KMA, Chia YH, Slade PA. Numerical
and analytical predictions of the limit load of rectangular two way
slabs. Comput Struct 2001.
[8] Limam O, Foret G, Ehrlacher A. RC beams strengthened with
Composite Material: A limit analysis approach and experimental
study. Compos Struct 2003;59:46772.
[9] Philippe M, Naciri T, Ehrlacher A. A tri-particle model of
sandwich panels. Compos Sci Technol 1999:1195206.
[10] Johansen KW. Yield line theory. London: Cement and Concrete
Association; 1962.
[11] Salencon J. Calcul a la rupture et analyse limite. Paris: Presses de
lENPC; 1983. 366 pp.