See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266735401

Development of Standard Bond Capacity Test

for FRP Bonded to Concrete

Conference Paper June 2012

CITATIONS READS

6 120

4 authors, including:

H. R. Hamilton Jovan Tatar

University of Florida University of Louisiana at Lafayette
64 PUBLICATIONS 439 CITATIONS 12 PUBLICATIONS 24 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

An Innovative Splice for Prestressed Precast Girders View project

Flexible Fillers in PT Bridge Applications View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jovan Tatar on 18 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARD BOND CAPACITY TEST FOR
FRP BONDED TO CONCRETE
Kent A HARRIES H.R. (Trey) HAMILTON
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering Department of Civil & Coastal Engineering
University of Pittsburgh, PA, USA University of Florida, Gainesville FL, USA
kharries@pitt.edu* hrh@ce.ufl.edu

Jarret KASAN Jovan TATAR

PhD Candidate Graduate Research Assistant
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering Department of Civil & Coastal Engineering
University of Pittsburgh, PA, USA University of Florida, Gainesville FL, USA

ABSTRACT
Efforts are underway to develop standardised tests to assess the bond capacity of FRP bonded
to a concrete substrate. While several bond test configurations have been proposed and some
standard tests have been promulgated, many use difficult-to-handle specimens or require
relatively complex test apparatuses. This paper focuses on a simple beam-bending bond test
based on concrete modulus of rupture (MOR) tests, which are simple to conduct and familiar
to most in the anticipated community of users. This study addresses the following parameters
that must be properly accounted for in the development of such a standard test: a) specimen
size; b) ratio of FRP width-to-beam width; and c) ratio FRP-to-concrete modulus.
Furthermore, the study contrasts simplified and rigorous methods of calculating internal
specimen forces with measured in situ stresses in order to validate assumptions necessary in
developing a standard test method.
Keywords: bond, concrete, FRP, standard test

1. Introduction
It is well established that debonding of adhesive-applied fibre-reinforced polymer composite
(FRP) retrofit materials from their concrete substrate often is a critical limit state. A variety of
test methods intended to quantify this behaviour have been proposed and tested. Proposed
methods generally fall into variations of two fundamental forms shown schematically in
Figure 1: pull-off tests [1,2] and beam tests [3-8]. Pull-off tests are generally relatively
small specimens requiring specialized test apparatus. Being small, pull-off tests are well
suited to accelerated aging or environmental conditioning. On the other hand, the smaller size
of the specimen may not capture certain effects of scale and/or limit the geometry of the FRP
and substrate investigated. Beam specimens overcome many of the drawbacks of pull-off
specimens; significantly, they better represent actual in situ behaviour. Some researchers
have used very small test specimens (Karbhari and Engineer [3] used specimens only 25 mm
square loaded over a 200 mm span) which may be limited in their applicability, while others
have used large specimens (Harries et al. [7] used specimens having a 250 x 150 mm section
tested over a 4.5 m span) which are not practical for standardized test applications. Larger
beam tests require internal steel reinforcing and their behaviour is affected by both internal
steel and concrete compression block response. Hinged beam tests [9], shown at the bottom
of Figure 1b, overcome variation associated with concrete compression block behaviour at
the expense of more complex specimen preparation.
The objective of the present work is to promote the development of a practical standardised
test method for assessing FRP-to-concrete bond characteristics. For a test method to be
practical, and therefore universally adopted, it must a) provide a reliable and repeatable
engineering property that describes bond behaviour; b) be sufficiently compact to be easily
handled and allow repetition; and c) have a form that is both suitable for environmental
exposure and accelerated aging tests while also capturing the general geometry of in situ
applications. A test method for direct tension pull-off testing of FRP-concrete interfaces has
been recently standardised [10]. This method is primarily intended as a quality control and/or
acceptance test and does not yield values of an engineering property suitable for design.
Therefore it remains that a method for assessing the more realistic in situ bond capacity of an
FRP-concrete interface is required.
Gartner et al. [4] and Evaslage et al. [5] independently focused on the notched three point
bend test as being suitable for standardisation. Together, the authors, under the auspices of
ASTM Committee D30 Plastics, are drafting a new ASTM standard for the method
described in this paper.
applied load
FRP concrete three point P
applied bending FRP
load
FRP
concrete
four point
bending notch h
h/2
notched
beam S/2 S/2 w
L/2 L/2 b=h
hinged L = 3h
beam

a) pull-off style tests b) beam style tests Figure 2. Test specimen configuration.
Figure 1. Schematic representation
of bond test methods.

2. Notched Three-Point Bend Test Specimen

The simple concrete beam specimen, shown in Figure 2, adopted for standardisation is
similar to that used to determine the modulus of rupture of concrete. The specimen geometry
is identical to that used in ASTM C78 [11]. Adhesively-bonded FRP is applied to the beam
soffit. To achieve controlled debonding behaviour of the FRP, the beam is notched at
midspan to one half the beam depth to represent cracked concrete. Debonding initiates at
concrete cracks and by initiating the crack, the location of initial debonding is known
allowing simple instrumentation to be used. Additionally, a three point bend test is adopted.
This is done because a) the presence of the notch eliminates the need for a constant moment
region; and b) the shear span is increased thus reducing the likelihood of a shear failure in the
flexurally strengthened test specimens. The specimen geometry is familiar to concrete testing
technicians, standard forms are readily available and no specialised test apparatus is required.
The notch may be saw-cut or formed into the specimen using thin shims. Evaslage et al. [5]
tested specimens having a notch width (kerf) varying from 1.3 to 7.6 mm and demonstrated
that behaviour of the specimen is insensitive to the kerf of the notch. Nonetheless, the notch
does expose the underside (bonded side) of the FRP and the critical location of the concrete-
FRP interface to any environmental conditioning that may be performed. For this reason,
forming the notch with a thin shim that remains in place may mitigate unintended
degradation. Additionally, to avoid adhesive from bridging the saw-cut during FRP
installation, the notch must be packed. In this study, aerosol foam insulation was used for this
purpose. The notch is cut to a depth of one half the beam depth (Figure 2). Although the
notch will behave as a crack initiator regardless of its depth, the deeper cut better negates the
stiffening effects of concrete in tension by removing this concrete. As will be described
below, the depth of cut also facilitates simplified calculations for FRP stress in a test.
3. Force in the FRP and FRP Debonding Stress
While it is known that the debonding stress varies dramatically over the length of the FRP,
the objective of the test method is to establish an average FRP bond capacity. A more refined
distribution of stress in the FRP may be determined by arranging strain gages along the
bonded FRP. A single gage located below the notch, however, is deemed sufficient to
determine the peak strain in the FRP at failure. From this single strain value () the tensile
force in the FRP (T) is determined:
T = K*w (1)
Where K* is the FRP tensile stiffness per unit width [12] and w is the FRP width. The
average bond strength over the entire bonded area to one side of the saw cut (Sw/2) can be
determined using:
= 2T/Sw (2)
where () is the average bond strength, (S) is the length and (w) is the width of the FRP
reinforcement. The use of strain gages in a standardised test may be impractical for some
laboratories or for very large test programs. Additionally, the use of strain gages is quite
likely impractical for specimens subjected to environmental conditioning. Thus, it is
necessary to determine the stress in the FRP by other means. Based on fundamental
mechanics and specimen geometry, the tension force in the FRP (T) required for equilibrium
at the location of the notch may be determined. Two such calculations are presented: a
simplified and a more rigorous approach. The free-body diagrams corresponding to these
methods are shown in Figure 3.
C
ah h(a/3)
C
5h/6 h d(1-a/3)
t T t T

S/2 S/2
L/2 L/2
a) simplified calculation (Eq. 3) b) rigorous calculation (Eq. 4)
Figure 3 Internal stresses in beam specimen.

3.1 Simplified Calculation

Gartner et al. [4] assumed a triangular concrete compression stress block in the beam
extending from the top of the notch to the top of the beam (Fig. 3a). Based on this geometry,
the tensile force carried by the FRP across the notch is:
T = 3PL/10h (3)
Where P is the applied load at midspan, L is the beam span and h is the overall beam depth.
Bond stress is then calculated from Eq. 2. This calculation assumes that the neutral axis of the
FRP-strengthened beam remains at midheight of the beam, which is not a valid assumption.
Nonetheless, the use of Eq. 3 is felt to be a good approximation of the beam specimen
behaviour and to permit direct comparison between specimens.
3.2 Rigorous Calculation
Recognising that the concrete will continue to crack above the notch and that the neutral axis
will shift upwards in a strengthened beam, the more rigorous formulation for tensile force in
the FRP given below may be derived based on the free body diagram shown in Figure 3b:
T = PL/4h(1-/3) (4)
Where is the normalised neutral axis depth measured from the top of the beam (Fig. 3b):

a 2 2 0.5 (5)
Where is the ratio of axial stiffnesses of the FRP and concrete:
= K*w/Ecbh (6)
Where Ec is the modulus of elasticity of the concrete. Bond stress is then calculated from Eq.
2. While accounting for the more realistic behaviour of the beam specimen, this formulation
requires the moduli of both the FRP and concrete to be known. In some instances, this may
not be possible in so far as environmental conditioning may affect one or both of these
values. In both formulations (Eqs 3 and 4) concrete is assumed to remain linear in
compression. In general, this assumption is considered valid for concrete stresses below about
0.6fc. Perfect bond between FRP reinforcement and concrete is also assumed for both
methods, which generally does not hold true as the ultimate capacity of the specimen is
reached.
4. Experimental Program
An experimental program was undertaken to assess the performance of the proposed
standardised test over a range of anticipated parameters. Parameters considered include a) the
use of 10-series (b=h=102mm) and 15-series (b=h=152mm) and cross-sections; b) FRP type;
c) FRP width; and d) concrete compressive strength. Varying these parameters fully evaluate
the terms in the equations for the rigorous method (Eq. 4, 5, and 6) and will provide the range
of conditions that will be encountered in bond testing. Varying both the FRP type and width
results in a significant range of values of FRP stiffness, K*w to be considered. Table 1
provides specimen identification, details and relevant material properties for all specimens
tested. The notches were provided by saw cutting resulting in a kerf of approximately 2 mm
in all cases. Three repetitions of each 15-series case were tested. The adhesive used had
manufacturers specified tensile and shear capacities of 24.8 MPa.
Table 1. Specimen identification, details and relevant material properties.
ID h = b = L/3 f c Ec 4725 fc ' FRP K* w S
mm MPa GPa N/mm mm mm
10-C1 102 28.0 25.0 1.02 mm CFRP fabric 71,680 25 203
10-C2 102 79.0 42.0 1.02 mm CFRP fabric 71,680 25 203
10-G1 102 28.0 25.0 1.02 mm GFRP fabric 26,540 25 203
10-G2 102 79.0 42.0 1.02 mm GFRP fabric 26,540 25 203
15-C1 152 32.0 26.1 1.65 mm CFRP strip 256,000 25 380
15-C2 152 32.0 26.1 1.65 mm CFRP strip 256,000 50 380
15-G1 152 32.0 26.1 1.90 mm GFRP strip 78,600 25 380
15-G2 152 32.0 26.1 1.90 mm GFRP strip 78,600 50 380
15-G3 152 32.0 26.1 1.90 mm GFRP strip 78,600 75 380
It is noted that there is a practical limit to the amount of FRP that may be applied to the
otherwise unreinforced beam specimens. If too much FRP is applied to the beams, the
behaviour changes from FRP debonding to concrete shear, which is not of interest in this test.
Thus the reinforcement quantity should be limited so that the ultimate capacity of the
specimen is lower than that required to cause a shear failure, which may be estimated as
0.33 f c 'bh (MPa and mm).

5. Test Procedure
All beams dimensions were measured in order to permit actual dimensions, rather than the
nominal dimensions reported in Table 1, to be used for subsequent calculations. All beams
were tested in three-point flexure over a span of 3h as shown in Figure 2. Load is applied at a
constant rate until failure. The load rate is established to result in an increase in FRP bond
stress of between 0.4 and 0.8 MPa/min; in general, this results in failure in less than three
minutes. Strain gages were applied to the FRP to definitively establish the FRP stress (Eq. 1).
Additional gages were arrayed vertically above the notch to establish the shape of the
concrete strain profile, depth of the neutral axis, and to verify that the concrete compressive
strains remain in the elastic range.
6. Test Results and Discussion
Table 2 summarises the applied load (P) and FRP strain (FRP) at ultimate capacity obtained
from the tests. The ultimate FRP strain is used in Eq. 1 to calculate the experimental average
bond strength (exp). This bond stress can only be considered average since a single strain
gage was used to measure FRP strain at the notch. Table 2 also reports the peak recorded
concrete strain at a location 12.5 mm below the extreme compression fibre (c) and the
location of the neutral axis (, see Figure 3b) determined from strain data. Finally,
experimental bond strength is compared to the calculated values produced by both the simple
and rigorous formulations for determining the average bond strength () presented previously.
The experimental bond strength was also determined using an alternate method. sp was
calculated using the measured depth of the compression stress block in Eq 4. Theoretically
these two methods of measurement will produce the same result. In nearly all cases,
however, exp is less than sp, and in a few cases they are comparable. This difference may be
due to the effect that the progressive debonding has on the distribution of the strain across the
width of the reinforcement (see Section 6.1). exp is based on measurement of strain at a
single point on the FRP reinforcement while sp is based on the total force in the FRP
reinforcement calculated from the applied load using equilibrium. Given that exp is a more
direct measure of force in the FRP reinforcement, it is compared to both the simplified and
rigorous methods in the form of the ratios shown in Table 2.
Both the simple and rigorous methods described by Eqs 3 and 4, respectively, overestimate
the experimentally observed average bond stress calculated using strain data (Eq. 1). For the
152-mm deep specimens, the average ratio of experimental-to-predicted debonding stress is
0.67 for the simple method (Eq. 3) and 0.75 for the rigorous method (Eq. 4). Similar ratios for
the 102-mm deep specimens are 0.80 and 0.94, respectively. The test results indicate that
both the simplified and rigorous methods provide unconservative estimates of the average
bond stress. If the rigorous method is compared the alternative bond strength measurement,
however, the results are more encouraging (Table 3). For the 10-series, the average ratio is
0.99 while for the 15-series the average ratio is 1.03, indicating excellent agreement for both
series.
The application of FRP to the notched beams results in a strengthening effect proportional to
the FRP stiffness. The average load carrying capacity (P in Table 3) of notched 152 mm
beams having no FRP was 5930 N. As is typically observed, as additional FRP is added, the
incremental strengthening effect is reduced. While not approached in this test program, this
effect is limited by the shear capacity of the beam specimens. Bond stress results obtained
 from the 152-mm deep specimens are generally lower than anticipated for a good FRP
application. The failure of most of these specimens was characterised as an adhesive failure
between the FRP and adhesive. This failure suggests improper preparation of the FRP strips
prior to installation. In addition, 10-C1-A and 10-G1-A had lower concrete strength but had
significantly larger ultimate bond capacities than companion specimens having higher
strength concrete. Following testing it was determined that the surface preparation of the
higher strength concrete specimens resulted in insufficient roughness, which led to adhesive
failure modes at lower loads. Nonetheless, poor bond performance does not affect the intent
or calculations presented here; indeed, if the test method were used to assess environmental
conditioning, poor bond results may very well be expected.
Table 2. Test results and calculated values of FRP stress.
experimental simplified rigorous
exp sp sim rig t exp t sp
ID P FRP c t exp Eq. 5
and 4 t rig t rig
Eq. 1 Eq.4 Eq. 3
t sim Eq. 5
N MPa MPa MPa MPa
10-C1-A 20515 9290 6.55 - - - 7.27 0.90 0.111 6.29 1.04 -
10-C2-A 12846 5280 3.73 -480 0.07 3.89 4.55 0.82 0.089 3.91 0.95 0.99
10-G1-A 14359 15300 4.00 -1700 0.04 4.30 5.09 0.79 0.069 4.34 0.92 0.99
10-G2-A 8140 7830 2.05 -530 0.05 2.45 2.88 0.71 0.055 2.45 0.84 1.00
15-C1-A 18326 - - - - - 3.35 - 0.133 2.97 - -
15-C1-B 14803 960 1.29 -142 0.17 2.48 2.72 0.47 0.133 2.40 0.54 1.03
15-C1-C 17681 - - -791 0.25 3.05 3.18 - 0.132 2.87 - 1.06
15-C2-A 32555 1650 2.22 -439 0.18 2.73 3.00 0.74 0.183 2.69 0.83 1.01
15-C2-B 28138 1499 2.02 -459 0.14 2.33 2.57 0.79 0.183 2.32 0.87 1.00
15-C2-C 24139 1094 1.47 -408 0.14 2.00 2.20 0.67 0.183 1.99 0.74 1.00
15-G1-A 9238 1956 0.81 - - - 1.65 0.49 0.075 1.47 0.55 -
15-G1-B 10795 2161 0.89 -530 0.22 1.84 1.96 0.45 0.076 1.72 0.52 1.07
15-G1-C 10253 2545 1.05 - - - 1.88 0.56 0.076 1.63 0.64 -
15-G2-A 17983 3410 1.41 -759 0.15 1.49 1.65 0.85 0.107 1.45 0.97 1.03
15-G2-B 19460 2424 1.00 -695 0.12 1.60 1.76 0.57 0.105 1.56 0.64 1.03
15-G2-C 16671 2019 0.84 - - - 1.55 0.54 0.107 1.34 0.63 -
15-G3-A 27462 3925 1.62 -968 0.21 1.55 1.68 0.96 0.129 1.48 1.09 1.05
15-G3-B 25727 2991 1.24 - - - 1.60 0.78 0.130 1.39 0.89 -
15-G3-C 27324 3069 1.27 -314 0.11 1.49 1.65 0.77 0.127 1.47 0.86 1.01

6.1 FRP Debonding and Strain Profiles

The overestimation of the experimental results is anticipated based on the nature of FRP
debonding. Both equations 3 and 4 return the average bond stress over the entire bonded area,
Sw/2. The development of bond stress, however, is not constant over the bonded length,
rather it is highest nearest the crack tip (or debonding front); and dissipates in a polynomial
fashion behind the peak. As the peak stress exceeds the bond capacity at a location (the notch
in this case), the debonding front moves back resulting in a strain discontinuity (slip) at the
FRP-to-concrete interface. This basic behaviour has been described by many researchers and
may be captured by arranging multiple strain gages along the bonded FRP as described
previously. Additionally, non-uniform stress transversely across the FRP resulting from shear
lag effects [13] has been demonstrated in laboratory studies [14].
Figure 4b shows the representative case of the strain development through the load history of
beam 15-C2-C. Increasing discontinuity in the strain profile indicates progressive debonding
that is clearly established at 80% of the peak load. Such discontinuity is evidence of bond
slip. The upward migration of the neutral axis with increasing load is also clearly evident,
validating the assumption of continued cracking above the notch embodied in the rigorous
method.
The strain profiles of the 15-series beams are shown in Figure 4a. In these specimens, the
concrete strain distribution was essentially linear and the neutral axis depth at final debonding
ranged from = 0.11 to 0.25 (Table 3). Because the bond capacity of the 10-series beams
was higher, the neutral axis in these specimens was positioned higher in the compression
zone at capacity ( = 0.05 to 0.07). The strain discontinuity resulting from progressive FRP
debonding is evident in the FRP strains being lower than the concrete tensile strains
immediately above the sawcut.
As seen in Table 3, the concrete compressive strains are not observed to exceed 1700 with
most values below 1000 . At this strain, the linear approximation of concrete behaviour
assumed in both the simple and rigorous analysis procedures is valid.
0 0
15-C1-B 15-C1-C
-0.1 15-C2-A 15-C2-B -0.1
15-C2-C 15-G1-B
concrete

concrete
-0.2 15-G2-A 15-G2-B -0.2
proportion of beam height, a

proportion of beam height, a

15-G3-A 15-G3-C at debonding load P
-0.3 -0.3
0.8P
-0.4 -0.4
0.6P
-0.5 -0.5

-0.6 -0.6
h/2 sawcut

h/2 sawcut
-0.7 -0.7

-0.8 -0.8
0.4P
-0.9 -0.9
FRP FRP
-1 -1
-2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
measured strain (me) measured strain (me)

a) all 15-series specimens at debonding load, P b) strain development in Beam 15-C2-C

Figure 4. Strain profiles.
6.2 Effects of Specimen Size and Concrete Strength
This test program reported specimens having standard dimensions of h = 102 and 152 mm,
corresponding to standard ASTM C78 specimen sizes. If the indirect measurement of FRP
tension is used, the rigorous method provides results that are comparable between the two
beam sizes. This indicates that the method of calculation is at least applicable for this range
of beam sizes, which are likely to be the majority of test specimens used in practice.
7. Conclusions
The proposed notched three-point bend test has been shown to be an excellent method of
assessing bond characteristics of FRP-to-concrete bond. In this approach, the stress carried by
the FRP spanning the notch is equated to an average bond stress over the entire bonded area
to one side of the notch. Four approaches to determining the average bond strength between
the bonded FRP and concrete were demonstrated. Clearly, the direct measurement of FRP
strain using strain gages is preferred although may be impractical, particularly when the test
is used to quantify the effects of environmental exposure. Similarly, indirectly assessment of
FRP force by concrete strain measurements intended to capture the location of the neutral
axis may also be impractical in many instances. In place of direct strain or indirect force
measurements, two analytical methods - the so-called simplified and rigorous methods -
based on fundamental mechanics and specimen geometry were compared to the measured
data. They were shown to generally overestimate the actual FRP stress when compared to the
strain measurements. When compared to the force measurements determined from
equilibrium of the concrete compression force, however, the results were in excellent
agreement. Both methods yielded consistent results with the rigorous method resulting in
more predictions closer to the measured values. The rigorous method accounts for concrete
cracking above the notch which was clearly observed and measured in all tests.
 The utility of the simplified or rigorous analytic methods is not in determining an appropriate
design value for bond stress capacity. Rather the analytical approaches provide reliable
means of comparing bond behaviour between specimens. For instance, while the actual bond
stress may not be calculated, the proportional deleterious effects of environmental
conditioning may be accurately assessed without resorting to direct strain measurements. The
notched three-point bend test will be developed for standardisation with this utility in mind.
REFERENCES
[1] WAN, B., SUTTON, M., PETROU, M.F., HARRIES, K.A., and LI, N. Investigation of Bond between
FRP and Concrete Undergoing Global Mixed Mode I/II Loading, ASCE Journal of Engineering
Mechanics, Vol. 130 No. 12, Dec. 2004, pp 1467-1475.
[2] AU, C., and BUYUKOZTURK, O. Peel and Shear Fracture Characterization of Debonding in FRP
Plated Concrete Affected by Moisture, ASCE Journal of Composites for Construction Vol. 10. No. 1,
Jan/Feb. 2006, pp 35-47.
[3] KARBHARI, V.M. and ENGINEER, M. Effect of Environmental Exposure on the External
Strengthening of Concrete with Composites Short Term Bond Durability, Journal of Reinforced
Plastics and Composites, Vol. 15, 1996, pp 194-1215.
[4] GARTNER, A.L., DOUGLAS, E.P., DOLAN, C.W. and HAMILTON, H.R. Small Beam Bond Test
Method for CFRP Composites Applied to Concrete, ASCE Journal of Composites for Construction, Vol.
15, No. 1, Jan/Feb. 2011, pp 52-61.
[5] EVESLAGE, T., AIDOO, J., HARRIES, K.A., and BRO, W. Towards a Standard Test Method for
Assessing FRP-to-Concrete Bond Characteristics, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on
FRP Composites in Civil Engineering, Beijing, Sept. 2010.
[6] BENJEDDOU, O., OUEZDOU, M. B., and BEDDAY, A. Damaged RC Beams Repaired by Bonding of
CFRP Laminates, Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 21, No. 6, 2007, pp 1301-1310.
[7] HARRIES, K.A., REEVE, B. and ZORN, A. Experimental Evaluation of Factors Affecting the
Monotonic and Fatigue Behavior of FRP-to-Concrete Bond, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 104, No. 6,
Nov/Dec. 2007, pp 667-674.
[8] HARRIES, K.A., ZORN, A. ,AIDOO, J. and QUATTLEBAUM, J. Deterioration of FRP-to-Concrete
Bond Under Fatigue Loading, Advances in Structural Engineering, Vol. 9, No. 6, June 2006, pp 779-
789.
[9] LUNDQVIST, J., NORDIN, H., TALJSTEN, B. and OLOFSSON, T. Numerical Analysis of Concrete
Beams Strengthened with CFRP A Study of Anchorage Lengths, Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Bond Behaviour of FRP in Structures, December 7-9, 2005, Hong Kong. pp 239-246.
[10] American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D7522-09 Standard Test Method for Pull-Off
Strength for FRP Bonded to Concrete Substrate, West Conshohocken, PA.
[11] American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) C78-08 Standard Test Method for the Flexural
Strength of Concrete (Using Simple Beam with Third Point Loading), West Conshohocken, PA.
[12] American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D7565-10 Standard Test Method for Determining
Tensile Properties of Fiber Reinforced Polymer Matrix Composites Used for Strengthening of Civil
Structures, West Conshohocken, PA.
[13] TIMOSHENKO, S.P. and GOODIER, J.N. Theory of Elasticity, McGraw-Hill, 1970 567 pp.
[14] RAMANATHAN, K. and HARRIES, K.A. Influence of FRP Width-To-Concrete Substrate Width (bf/b)
on Bond Performance of Externally Bonded FRP Systems, Proceedings of 12th International
Conference on Structural Faults and Repair Edinburgh, June 2008.

View publication stats