Proceedings of the International Symposium on Bond Behaviour of FRP in Structures (BBFS 2005)

Chen and Teng (eds)

2005 International Institute for FRP in Construction

CLOSED-FORM RIGOROUS SOLUTION FOR THE INTERFACIAL STRESSES IN

PLATED BEAMS USING A TWO-STAGE METHOD

Jian Yang1 and Jianqiao Ye2

School of Engineering, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT
2
School of the Civil Engineering, The University of Leeds, UK

ABSTRACT
Interfacial shear and transverse normal stresses have played a significant role in understanding the premature
debonding failure of reinforced concrete (RC) beams strengthened by bonding steel/composite plates/sheets at
their soffits. Due to the occurrence of dissimilar materials and the abrupt change of cross section, the stress
distributions become singular and hence are considerably complicated. Extensive experimental and analytical
analyses have been undertaken to investigate the stress distributions. Large discrepancies have been found
among various studies, particularly from experimental results due to the apparent difficulty to measure the
interfacial stresses. Numerical analysis, e.g. finite element analysis (FEA), may predict more accurate results,
but they demand tedious work on meshing and sensitivity analysis. Analytical solutions, in particular the closedform ones, are unquestionably desirable in engineering practice, provided that they predict the result reliably and
easily. This paper reports an improved closed-form rigorous solution for the interfacial stresses in plated beams
using a two-stage method. Compared with the previous analytical results, this one is the only one which
accurately predicts the transverse normal stresses in both adhesive-concrete and plate-adhesive interfaces in a
closed-form.
KEYWORDS
FRP, RC beams, strengthening, interfacial stresses, stress concentration, debonding failure.
INTRODUCTION
Reinforced concrete (RC) beams can be strengthened by bonding steel or composite plate/sheet at the soffits.
Numerous studies have shown that this method improves their structural behaviours efficiently (Swamy et al.,
1987; Triantafillou and Plevris, 1992; Teng et al., 2001). However, a key problem emerging in the applications
of this method is the premature debonding failure, i.e. the bonded plates separate from the RC beams and the
strengthened beams lose their integrity. The load at which the debonding occurs is much lower than the ultimate
load achieved through their composite actions and hence becomes the controlling factor when their loading
capacities are evaluated. As has been well understood, the debonding failure is closely related to the high
interfacial stresses at the plate ends. Hence, a reliable prediction of the interfacial stress is prerequisite. Due to
the occurrence of dissimilar materials and the abrupt change of the cross sections, the stress components become
singular and are considerably complicated. Extensive experimental and analytical analyses have been
undertaken to investigate the stress distributions. Smith and Teng (2001) and Mukhopadhyaya and Swamy
(2001) have compared the various analytical solutions available by then and a more thorough and recent review
has been done by Yang (2005), in which the published experimental, numerical and analytical investigations
have been reviewed. Large discrepancies have been found among various studies, particularly from
experimental results due to the difficulty to measure the interfacial stresses. Numerical analysis, e.g. finite
element analysis (FEA), may predict more accurate results, but they demand tedious work on meshing and
sensitivity analysis. Analytical solutions, particularly the closed-form one, are unquestionably desirable in
engineering practice, provided that they predict the result reliably and easily. These include the work of Roberts
and Haji-Kazemi (1989), Taljsten (1997), Malek et al (1998), and Smith and Teng (2001). Shen et al. (2001)
proposed a closed-form solution for the strengthened beam subjected to uniformly distributed load (UDL) in
which the adhesive layer was treated as a 2-D medium. Yang et al. (2004) extended it to arbitrary loading
conditions. Their solutions predicted the shear stresses agreeing well with the FEA results, while the transverse
normal stresses were less accurate, in particular in the plate-adhesive (PA) interfaces.

175

This paper reports an improved closed-form rigorous solution for the interfacial stresses in plated beams using a
two-stage method. Compared with the previous analytical results, this is the only one which can accurately
predict the transverse normal stresses in both adhesive-to-concrete (AC) and PA interfaces while still are in the
closed-form.
METHOD OF SOLUTIONS
Structural idealisation of the strengthened beam
We consider a simply supported RC beam subjected to a uniformly distributed load (UDL) q and a pair of
symmetric end moment M0. The beam has a span length 2L, and is partially strengthened by externally bonding
a plate/sheet using structural adhesive. The length of the bonded area is 2l. The structural idealisation of the
beam is illustrated in Figure 1. The applied loads cause the internal forces Nl, Ql and Ml at the cross-sections of
the RC beam where the bonded plate ends. The sign convention for the applied loadings and the internal forces
are shown in Figure 2. A global Cartesian co-ordinate system x-y is used with its origin being at the middle of
the top surface of the beam (Figure 1). The bonded segment consists of three layers: the concrete beam, the
adhesive layer and the plate. A local coordinate system x[i] - y[i] is adopted for each of the three layers, with the
origin being at the geometrical centre of each layer (Figure 2a). For ease of reference, these three layers are
denoted by superscripts [1], [2] and [3] respectively (e.g. the thicknesses of the three layers are denoted by h[1], h[2]
and h[3] respectively). Similarly, superscripts (0), (1), (2) and (3) are used to denote the surfaces and interfaces (e.g.
the widths the surfaces/interfaces are b(0), b(1), b(2) and b(3) respectively) (Figure 2b). Note b(0) = b(1) = b(2) from
physical observation.

q
y

M0

M0

2l
2L

Fig.1 Structural idealisation of the strengthened RC beam

[3]
[2]
[1]

y[3]
x

y[2]

[2]

(2)

(1)
x[1] (0)

y[1]

Ql

Nl
Ml

b(2)
b(1)
b(0)

h[3]

Nl
Ml Q
l

[2]
h[1] h

(3)
[3]

b(3)

(a) Strengthened segment

(b) Cross section of the strengthened segment
Fig. 2 Notation used in the solution derivation
The rationale and the description of the method
Previous studies, e.g. Shen et al. (2001) and Yang et al. (2004) have shown that the shear stress in the adhesive
layer varies negligibly along the thickness direction. FEA modellings, e.g., Teng et al (2002) and Yang (2005),
showed significant transverse normal stress variation that changes the sign from tension in the AC interface to
compression in the PA interface.
The present analysis consists of two stages. At both stages, Fourier series expansion of the unknown stresses
and the principle of the complementary energy are used. One of the unique features of this solution is that an
infinite number of terms of Fourier series can be taken and the explicit summations can be obtained. In the first
stage, shear stress and transverse normal stress along the middle section of the adhesive layer (MA) are
expressed in Fourier series respectively, in which an approximate relationship between them is introduced based
on the assumption of composite action. This will reduce the number of the unknown coefficients and lead to
explicit solutions for both stress components. At the second stage, the transverse normal stress is re-expressed
and joins the shear stress obtained from the first staged to derive other stress components based on the

176

equilibrium equations and the related boundary conditions. The principle of the complementary energy is used
again to calculate the new transverse normal stress with improved accuracy.
At both stages, the following assumptions are adopted:
1. Each individual layer is elastic, homogeneous and orthotropic. Note that the assumption of orthotropic
behaviour has implications only for the shear moduli of the materials for the RC beam and the bonded
plate;
2. The three layers are perfectly bonded (no slips or opening-up at the interfaces);
3. The Euler-Bernoulli beam theory is adopted for the beam and the plate, whereas the adhesive layer is
considered to be in a plane stress state;
4. The shear stress in the adhesive layer is constantly distributed in the thickness direction;
5. In the first stage, the assumption of plan section is used to define the relationship between the
transverse normal stress and shear stress along the middle section of the adhesive layer.
Shear stress in the adhesive layer
and the transverse normal stress in the MA section is
The shear stress in the adhesive layer is defined by [2]
xy
defined by y 0 . Using the equilibrium equations and boundary conditions given in Yang et al. (2004), the
transverse normal stress in the adhesive layer can be calculated by
[2]
d xy
[2]
(1)
[2]
y = y0 y
dx
where y[2] is the local transverse coordinate for the adhesive layer, [2]
and y 0 are only the functions in respect
xy
of the x coordinate.
and y 0 may be expanded using Fourier series as follows,
[2]
xy
mx ;
mx
(2a, b)
y 0 ( x) = am cos
l
l
m
m
where a m and bm are unknown Fourier coefficients; and m = 1, 2, . Note that the constant term in Equation
2b has been set to zero to satisfy the equilibrium requirement that the integration of the interfacial normal stress
over the entire length of the middle section must be equal to zero.

xy[ 2] ( x) = bm sin

To facilitate the derivation of the explicit solution, we set up the relationship between the unknown Fourier
coefficients am and bm by
m
(2c)

am = bm
l

where is the coefficient, which was derived in Yang and Ye (2005). This leaves only one set of unknown
coefficients bm in the equations.
Following the similar procedures in Yang et al. (2004), the stress components in the RC beam and bonded
plated can be obtained by
1
l
mx
6 y [1] [1]

h + h [ 2] 2
bm ( 1) cos
[1]
[1] 3
m
l

m
h
2
1 3 2 h [ 2]

y [1] 3( y [1] ) [1]

mx
= +
[1] +
h + h [ 2] 2 bm sin
3
[1]
[
1
]
l
4h
h
4
m
(h )

x[1] =
[xy1]

6 y [1] [ 2]
6 y [1]
l
mx

m
[ 3]
bm ( 1) cos
+
2M l + ql 2 qx 2
[3] [3] 3 h + h + 2

l b ( 3) h [ 3] 3
h
m m
h
2

2
b ( 2) 1 3 2 + h [ 2 ]
y [ 3] 3 y [ 3]
mx
3qx
= ( 3 )
+ [ 3] +
h [ 2 ] + h [3] + 2 bm sin
+
4 y [ 3] h [ 3]
[ 3]
3
[ 3]
( 3)
[ 3] 3
l
b 4
4h
h
m
h
2b h

x[3] =

xy[3]

( )
[

b ( 2)
b ( 3)

[
( )
[
]

( )[
( )

( )

((
)

) ( ))
2

(3a-d)

The unknown coefficients bm may now be determined by minimising the total complementary energy of the
strengthened segment by nullifying the first-order partial derivative with respect to bm , which yields

177

2
S l 2
l
m
l
m
j
b j ( 1) + 1
S1
bm = Pm
+ S 2 + S3
( 1)
l
m
j =1, 2 , L j
2 m

(4)

where the constant S1, S2 , S3 and the coefficient Pm, which are related to the geometrical and material properties
of the constituent layers, can be found in Yang (2005) and Pm also includes the term number m.
Rewriting Equation 4 yields

1
m4
l
m
bm = 4
Pm
( 1) RS1
m + 2 m 2 + 2
m

S3
where

(5)

2
2
1
( 1) mP
S1 ;
l
l 2 2
l S
, =
= 2 ; =
R= 4
m m 4 + 2m 2 + 2 = m m4 + 2 m2 +m 2 (6a-e)
S 3 + l 4 S1
2S3
2S 3
the summations of the infinite terms of series in and can be explicitly calculated as constants (Yang, 2005).
m

Substitute Equations (5) and (6) into Equations (2) yields

lS R
( 1)m m sin m x + B
( 1)m
l 2
m
[xy2 ] = 2 A 1 4
sin
x

2
2
4
2
2
m m + 2m +
S 3
l
l
m m (m + 2 m + )

= C1 sinh 1
l

x + C 2 sinh 2

x + C3 x

(7)

where 1 = + 2 2 and 2 = 2 2 and the second equation in Equation (7) is derived using the
summation functions of the Fourier series functions (Yang, 2005). The constant coefficients A, B, C1, C2 and C3
are given in Yang (2005).
Transverse normal stress in the adhesive layer
Substituting Equations (2b) and (7) into Equation (1) yields

m x

y C1 1 cosh 1 x + C2 2 cosh 2 x + C3
[2]
y = am cos
l

(8)

Using the same procedure as that in the preceding section, the stress components are obtained as follow
2
3
12 y [1] l
mx

m
[1] ;
(h[1] )2 4(y[1] )2 ml am sin mlx + xya[1] ;
xy[1] =
x[1] =
+ xa
am ( 1) cos

3
[1] 3
l
m
2(h[1] )
(h ) m m

; [3] 3b
b ( 2 ) 12 y [3] l
mx

m
am ( 1) cos l + xa[3] + xb[3] xy = 2b (3)
b (3) h[3] 3 m m
2

[x3] =

( 2)

( )

3
[ 3]
h

[(h
)
3

[ 3] 2

( ) ] a

4 y [ 3]

sin

mx
[ 3]
3]
+ xya
+ [xyb
l

where

6 y[1] ( h[1] + h[2] )

6h[2] y[1] ( x l )

cosh 1 x cosh +
sinh 1 + C2
1

2
3
[1]
[1]

h
h

( )
( )

2
2
2
[1]
[1]

[2] [1]
[1] [2]
l x )( 6 y h ) 3 y h ( l x )
6h y ( x l )
(

sinh 2 + C3
+

3
2
3

2 ( h[1] )

( h[1] )
( h[1] )

[1]
xa
= C1 1

6 y[1] h[1] + h[2]

(
) cosh 2 x cosh

1
2
[1] 2

( )

2
2

[1] 2
[1]
[2]

3h[2] ( h[1] ) 4 ( y[1] )

1
3 ( y ) ( h + h ) 4 y[1] + 3h[2] 1

+
+ C2
sinh
x
sinh

1
3
3
4
l
4h[1]
4 ( h[1] )

( h[1] )

[1]
= C1
xya

[1] 2
[1]
[2]

[1]
[2]
1
3 ( y ) ( h + h ) 4 y + 3h

[1]
[1] 3

4
4
h

(h )

2
2

3h[2] ( h[1] ) 4 ( y[1] )

[1] 2
[2]
[1]
[2]
[1]
[2]
[1] 2

sinh + C x y 3h + 3 4 y + 3h + h 3h l 1 y
x+
sinh

2
3
3
[1]
[1]
[1]
[1]
[1]
l
4h
h 4 h

4 ( h[1] )

h h

6 y[3] h[2] + h[3]

6 y[3] h[2] + h[3]

6h[2] y[3] ( x l )
b(2)
b(2)

cosh 1 cosh 1 x +

xa[3] = C1 (3) 1 +
sinh 1 + C2 (3) 1
2
3
2

l
b
b
h[3]
h[3]
h[3]

(
( )

( )

2
b(2)

6h y ( x l )

sinh 2 + C3 (3)
3
cosh l x cosh 2 +
[3]
b

(h )
[2]

178

[3]

(
( )

( l 2 x 2 )( 6 y[3] h[3] ) 3 y[3] h[2] l x 2

( )

[3] 2
[3] 3

2(h )
(h )

[3]
= C1
xya

2
2

[3] 2
[2]
[3
[3] 2
[2]
[3]

3h[2] ( h[3] ) 4 ( y[3] )

(2)
b(2) 3 ( y ) ( h + h ) 4 y[3] 3h[2] 1
1

sinh + C b 3 ( y ) ( h + h )
+

+
sinh
x
1
2 (3)
3
3
3
(3)
[3]
[3]
[3]
[3]
b
4h
4
l
b
4(h )

(h )
(h )

[2]

3h

4 y[3] + 3h[2] 1
sinh 2 x +
4
l
4h[3]

[ 3]
xb
=

6 y [ 3]
b

( 3)

(h )

[ 3] 3

(2M

[3 2

[3] 2
( h ) 4 ( y )
b(2)

sinh 2 + C3 (3)
3
[3]
b
4(h )

+ ql 2 qx 2

);

[ 3]
xyb
=

3qx

( )

2b ( 3) h[ 3]

(2 y

[ 3]

2
y[3] 2 3h[2]
4 y[3] 3h[2] h[3] 3h[2]l 1 y[3]
[3] [3]
x [3] [3] + 3 +
[3]

4
h
h
4
h
h
h

)(

h [ 3] 2 y [ 3] + h [ 3]

(9a-j)

By utilising the principle of complementary energy, a similar equation to Equation (4) is obtained, i.e.
2
2

S l 4
l
l
l
m
j
a j ( 1) + 1
S1
+ S 3 a m = Pm
( 1)
+ S 2
m
m
j =1, 2 ,L j
2 m

Likewisely, the constant S1' , S2' ,

S3'

(10)

and the coefficient Pm' are not listed herein for brevity but can be found in Yang

(2005).
Following the similar procedure as that in the first stage, we have

( 1)
( 1)
( 1)
m
m
m
x + H2
x + H3
x
cos
cos
cos
2
2
2
2
2
l
l
l
m m + ( 1 )
m m + ( 2 )
m m + (1 + i 2 )
m
( 1)
1
1
m
m
m
x + H5 2
x + H6 2
+H4 2
cos
cos
cos
2
2
2
l
l
l
m m + (1 i 2 )
m m + (1 + i 2 )
m m + (1 i 2 )

y 0 = H1

(11)

where i is the unit of the imaginary of a complex and

1 =

+ ;
2

2 =

2
;
l S
= 2 ; = l S1
2
2S 3
2S 3

(12a-d)

By following a complicated mathematical derivation, the transverse normal stress in the MA section can be
calculated by

0
F F1
1
l2
y 0 = {G1R F2 + G1I 2
+ G2 R F4 + 0 F5 +
F6 2 S1R

21 2
S3

11 12
21 22

0 12
2
4
4
G2 I
l2
(13)
F5 + 0 2 F6 2 S1R + G1 1 + G2 2
F4 ( F3 ) +
1112
21 22

1112
21 22
212

where G1R , G1I , G2 R , G 2 I , G1 and G2 are the functions in respect of x, and all the other variables are constants.
Due to the limit of length of this paper, they are not listed herein but can be found in Yang (2005).
+

Using Equation (8), the transverse interfacial normal stress can be obtained by substituting y [ 2] with h[ 2] / 2 and
h[ 2] / 2 , respectively, i.e.

h[ 2] 1

(14a)
cosh 1 x + C 2 cosh 2 x + C
(1) =
C
y

y( 2 )

y0

2
l
l
l
l

1
2
2
h[ 2] 1

= y0 +
cosh
x + C2
cosh
x + C3
C1
2
l
l
l
l

(14b)

SOLUTION VERIFICATION BY NUMERICAL EXAMPLES

The first example is an RC beam bonded with a steel plate subjected to a UDL q = 15N/mm initially analysed
by Roberts and Haji-Kazemi (1989). For ease of reference, the geometrical and material properties are relisted
herein as follow: L = 1200mm, l = 900mm, h[1]= h[2]= 4mm, h[3]= 150mm, b(1) = b(2) = b(3) = 100mm, E x[1] = E [y1] =
[ 3]
= 0.17. This example has been used
200GPa, E x[ 2] = E [y2] = 2GPa, Ex[3] = E [y3] = 20GPa, xy[1] = 0.3, xy[ 2] = 0.25 and xy
in various studies, e.g. Shen et al. (2000), Smith and Teng (2001), Teng et al. (2002) and Yang et al. (2004),
among which Teng et al.s (2002) elastic FEA study revealed the most severe stress singularities. Hence, they
are compared with the results obtained by the present solution as shown in Figure 3. The comparison of the
transverse normal stress exhibits that both methods predict tensile stresses in the AC interface and compressive
ones in PA interface. The peak values in AC and PA interfaces predicted by the present solution are
considerably lower than those from FEA. It is deemed to be attributed to the adoption of the Euler-Bernoulli

179

theory for the beam and the plate as mentioned in the assumptions. However, the results show very good
coincidence along the most bonded span expect the region within 5 mm from the plate ends, where transverse
normal stress in the adhesive becomes extremely complex. The adhesive adjacent to the AC interface is in
tension and that adjacent to the PA interface is in compression. From Figure (3a), it is also seen that in the AC
interface there is a tension region near the plate end followed by compression one. The stress resultants in each
region generate a couple which causes the bend moment in the bonded plate. A single shear stress distribution is
predicted by the present solution, and as Figure (3b) shows, its peak value is slightly lower than those from FEA
method for both interfaces and the MA section. The discrepancy only occurs within the region 20 mm from the
plate end.
Teng et al.(2002)
FE PA Interface
FE MA Section
FE AC Interface

Present
(1)
y (PA Interface)
y0 (MA Section)

10

(2)

y (AC Interface)

4
-2
-8
880

885

890

x(mm)

895

Shear Stress (MPa)

Normal Stress (MPa)

16

Present
[2]
xy

-2

-4

-6

-8
880

900

Teng et al.(2002)
FE PA Interface
FE MA Section
FE AC Interface
885

(a) Transverse normal stress

890

x(mm)

895

900

(b) Shear stress

0.4

Present solution
Sheng et al. (2001)

0.3
0.2

1: AC interface
2: MA section
3: PA interface
2

-0.025

Present solution
Sheng et al. (2001) PA Interface
Sheng et al. (2001) AC Interface

-0.075

0.0
3

0.9925

0.000

-0.050

0.1

0.9900

Dimensionless Shear Stresses

Dimensionless Normal Stresses

Fig. 3 Steel plate beam under UDL

0.9950

x/l

0.9975

-0.100

1.0000

0.9900

0.9925

x/l
0.9950

0.9975

1.0000

(a) Transverse normal stress

(b) Shear stress
Fig. 4 CFRP plated beam under UDL
The second verification example is taken from Shen et al. (2001). An RC beam bonded with a CFRP plate and
subjected to UDL. The geometrical and material properties are: L = 1500mm, l = 1200mm, h[1]= h[2]= 2mm,
h[3]= 300mm, b(1) = b(2) = b(3) = 200mm, Ex[1] = 140GPa, Gxy[1] = 5GPa, E x[ 2] = E [y2] = 3GPa, Ex[3] = E [y3] = 30GPa, xy[ 2] =
[ 3]
= 0.18. The results are presented in the dimensionless format in Figure 4, i.e. the x coordinate is
0.35 and xy

normalized by l, and stress values are normalized by the extreme tensile fibre stress in concrete at the midspan,
which is qL2 2 Z c where Zc is the elastic modulus of the concrete beam. As Figure 4(a) shows, Shen et al (2001)
predicted tensile normal stress in PA interface, which should be compressive. The present solution has obvious
improved this. In Figure (4), both solutions predict almost identical shear stresses and Shen et als results
suggested that there was little difference in the interfacial shear stresses between the AC and PA interfaces. This
conclusion can be used to validate the assumption adopted in deriving the present solution that the shear stress is
uniform along the thickness direction.
CONCLUSIONS

In this paper, an elastic closed-form rigorous interfacial stress solution is proposed for a strengthened RC beam.
Unlike most numerical methods which require either tedious pre- and post-processing work or computer coding,
the present solution may offer the practical engineers an easy method to predict the interfacial stresses in the

180

plated beam, which can be achieved by using spread sheet packages. Compared with other analytical solutions,
this one is more reliable and encouraging. The numerical examples show that the present solution can deliver a
comparable accuracy as the FEA solutions. To the authors best knowledge, this is the only closed-form solution
being able to predict the compressive normal stress in the PA interface so far. As a closed-form solution, it can
be further simplified to serve as a compact design equation (Ye and Yang, 2005). Furthermore, it also has the
potential to be exploited to develop a sound strength model which may incorporate most real natures exhibited
by this application through calibrating with sufficient number of test results. The method used to derive this
solution is versatile and can be used to analyse other composite structures such as strengthened cast iron beams.
REFERENCE

Malek, A.M. Saadatmanesh, H. Ehsani, M.R. Prediction of failure load of R/C beams strengthened with FRP
plate due to stress concentration at the plate end. ACI Structural Journal 1998; 95 (1), 142-152.
Mukhopadhyaya, P. and Swamy, R. N. Interface shear stress: A new criterion for plate debonding. Journal of
composites for construction 2001; 5(1). 35-43.
Roberts, T.M. and Haji-Kazemi, H. Theoretical study of the behavior of reinforced concrete beams strengthened
by externally bonded steel plates. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 2 1989; 87, 39-55.
Shen, H.S, Teng, J.G, Yang, J. Interfacial stresses in beams and slabs bonded with thin plate. Journal of
Engineering Mechanics ASCE 2001; 127(4), 399-406.
Smith, S.T. and Teng, J.G. Interfacial stresses in plated beams. Engineering Structures 2001; 23, 857-871.
Swamy, R. M. Jones, R. and Bloxham, J. W. Structural behavior of reinforced concrete beams strengthened by
epoxy-bonded steel plates. The Structural Engineer 1987; 65A(2), 59-68.
T ljsten, B. Strengthening of beams by plate bonding. J Mater Civil Eng ASCE 1997; 9(4), 206-212.
Teng, J.G., Chen, J.F., Smith, S.T. and Lam, L. FRP strengthened RC Structures 2002; Wiley, Chichester, U.K.
Teng, J.G., Zhang, J.W. and Smith, S.T. Interfacial stresses in RC beams bonded with a soffit plate: a finite
element study. Constuction and Building Materials, 2002; 16(1), 1-14.
Triantafillou, T. C. and Plevris, N. Strengthening of RC beams with epoxy-bonded fiber-composite materials.
Mater. Struct. 1992; 25, 201-211.
Yang, J. The Stress Analysis and Strength Prediction of Plated RC Beams. Ph.D Thesis 2005; School of Civil
Engineering, the University of Leeds, UK.
Yang, J., Teng, J.G. and Chen, J.F. Interfacial stresses in soffit-plated reinforced concrete beams. Proceedings of
the Institution of Civil Engineering, Structures and Buildings 2004; 157, 77-89.
Yang, J, and Ye, J.Q. Interfacial shear stress in FRP-plated RC beams under symmetric loads. 2004 (submitted).
Ye, J.Q. and Yang, J. (2005) An investigation on the stress transfer in concrete beams bonded with FRP plates
(published in this proceedings).

181

182